m 


//  ^ 


^^,«^^3, 


wiMrg. 


PRINCETON,   N.    J. 


I 


Part  of  the        ^ 
J       ADDISON     ALEXA.NDER    LIBRAEY,     "> 
which  wiig  presented  by 
Messks.  B.  L.  and  a.  Stuart. 


BV  811  .L3  63 — 

Lape,    Thomas. 

Manual    of   Christian   bapti 


sm 


'^ :>■-—> 


A 

MANUAL 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM: 

INFANT  BAPTISM, 


AND    THE 


MODE; 

IN  TWO   DISCOURSES, 

BY    THE  ,, 

Rev.  THOMAS  lAPE,  A.  W.' 

SECOND    EDITION,    CORRECTED    AND    ENLARGED. 


Baltfmort: 

PRINTED    AT-THE    PUBLICATION    ROOMS 

*0F  THE  EVAVGKLICAL  LUTHER  AN. CHURCH, 

NO.  7,  SOUTH  LIBERTY  STREET. 

1813. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  year  1843,  by  Thomas  Lape,  A.  M.,  m 
the  Clerk'-s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Maryland. 


PREFACE 


The  former  edition  was  written  in  the  midst  of  many  in- 
terruptions, and  the  result  naturally  was,  the  occurrence  of 
some  inaccuracies.  The  present  edition  has  heen  corrected 
and  considerably  enlarged.  It  has  been  the  oliject  of  the 
writer  to  present  the  Interesting  subjects,  which  are  discuss- 
ed, in  a  clear,  intelligible,  but  above  all,  scriptural  manner. 
The  woik  has  been  written  with  no  unkind  feelings  to- 
wards his  Baptist  brethren,  from  whose  principles,  he  dis- 
sents. He  hopes  and  prays  that  the  day  is  not  far  distant 
when  the  unhappy  division  that  now  exists  on  the  subjects 
and  mode  of  baptism  may  not  only  cease,  but  that  chris- 
tians ^  every  denomination  may  live  together  in  Peace, 
Union  and  Fellowship. 


RECOMiMENDATIONS. 


1.  From  the  Rev.  George  A.  Lintner,  D.  D.,  late  Pre- 
sident of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
church  in  the  United  States. 

"I  was  much  pleased  with  your  treatise  on  baptism  and 
I  have  no  doubt  that  in  the  minds  of  many  of  our  people 
it  will  be  instrumental  in  removing  the  difficulties  and  cor- 
recting the  misrepresentations  that  have  existed  on  this 
subject.  It  is  brief  and  comprehensive,  and  presents  the 
whole  controversy  in  so  simple  a  form,  and  clear  a  light, 
that  all  who  read,  can  understand  it.  I  am  pleased  to  hear 
that  you  are  about  publishing  another  edition,  and  hope  that 
the  work  may  be  extensively  circulated  through  our  church." 

2.  I  take  pleasure  in  stating  that  I  entirely  concur  in  the 
sentiments  respecting  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lape's  Treatise  on  Bap- 
tism, expressed  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lintner.       B.  KURTZ. 

3.  At  a  recent  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Hartwick,  held 
in  Johnstown,  Fulton  county,  New  York,  the  following  is 
the  result  of  tlie  comniillce  appointed  to  examine  6iaid*vvork: 

"  Tiie  committee  appointed  to  examine  the  work,  Manual 
of  Baptism,  would  respectfully  report  that  the  work  has 
bee«  prepared  with  cure  and  is  considered  well  adapted  to 
establish  the  minds  of  our  people  on  the  interesting  subjects 
of  Infant  Baptism  and  the  Mode.  The  rapid  sale  of  the  for- 
mer edition,  together  with  tlie  additional  matter  introduced 
and  the  approbation  of  several  eminent  divines  of  ditferent 
denominations,  strongly  recommend  the  work  to  the  chris- 
tian public.  The  committee  are  liappy  to  learn  that  the 
author  is  about  issuing  a  second  edition,  and  we  trust  tiiat 
it  will  be  widely  circulated  through  the  bounds  of  our 
church."  JACOB  Z.  SENDERLL\G, 

DAVID  EYSTER, 
a2  LEVI  STERNBERG. 


INFANT  BAPTISM, 

Matthew  xxvni.   19. 

"  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  (make  Disciples  of  j  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

By  virtue  of  the  authority  of  Christ,  his  dis- 
ciples were  invested  with  a  high  commission. 
They  were  directed  to  go  and  make  disciples 
of  all  nations.  The  whole  world  was  placed 
in  a  salvable  state.  Baptism  was  ordained  to 
be  the  medium  of  the  introduction  into  the 
visible  church  of  Christ,  and  every  individual, 
who  has  an  opportunity  of  receiving  it,  is  in 
duty  bound  to  become  baptized.  But  an  ob- 
jector says  that  believers  only  are  to  be  bap- 
tized. To  which  I  reply,  that  the  text  is  not 
limited  to  such  only^  but  it  declares  "  make 
disciples  of  all  nations.''''  A  question  arises 
here  of  what  is  a  nation  composed .?  It  is 
composed  of  men,  women  and  children.  Chil- 
dren then  are  to  be  baptized.  The  objector 
says,  but  children  are  not  expressly  mentioned. 
I  reply,  neither  are  men  and  women  expressly 
mentioned.  Must  I  then  refuse  to  baptize 
children  because  I  find  no  express  command  in 
so  many  words  that  children  are  to  be  bap- 
tized ?  Then  according  to  correct  reasoning 
I  must  not  baptize  men,  because  men  are  not 
expressly  mentioned — then  I  must  not  baptize 
a3 


6 


loomcn^  because  women  are  not  expressly  men- 
tioned. Now  to  follow  out  this  express  rule, 
then  noiw  are  to  be  baptized.  Eut  this  is  con- 
trary to  the  text,  viz. — "  make  disciples  of  all 
nations^  baptizing,"  &c.  Therefore  I  am  au- 
thorized to  baptize  all  who  compose  a  nation, 
men,  women  and  children.  Infant  baptism  then 
is  commanded  in  the  scriptures. 

In  tlie  further  elucidation  of  this  subject,  let 
me  call  your  attention  to  the  following  consid- 
erations. 

I.  The  Church  of  God  is  virtually  and 

ESSENTIALLY  ONE  AND  THE  SAME  UNDER  BOTH 

Dispensations.  The  common  definition  of  the 
Church  of  God  is,  the  collective  body  of  the 
people  of  God  ;  though  divided  into  different 
branches  and  worshipping-  God  according  to 
different  external  rules,  yet  all  constitute  but 
one  society.  Now  in  the  church  of  God,  of 
both  dispensations,  we  find  the  same  great  es- 
sential identity.  Both  dispensations  have  the 
same  divine  Flead,  both  have  the  same  precious 
covenant,  both  have  the  same  spiritual  object 
in  view,  both  have  the  same  atoning  blood ; 
the  same  sanctifying  spirit,  and  both  have  the 
same  great  promise  of  heaven  and  eternal  hap- 
piness. 

To  place  this  subject  beyond  any  reasonable 
doubt,  the  Saviour  himself  declares  in  Matthew 
5th  chap.  17th  verse,  "Think  not  that  I  am 
come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets  ;  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fidjilP  The  Sa- 
viour undoubtedly  meant  to  convey  the  idea 


that  he  had  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  of  God 
or  even  to  lessen  its  requirements,  but  to  carry 
out  its  great  object  and  design  more  complete- 
ly, more  perfectly,  and  as  far  as  it  had  respect 
to  the  church  of  God,  which  was  only  in  its 
infant  and  imperfect  state,  he  would  render  it 
too  7)iore  complete^  more  perfect.  The  apostle 
Paul  also,  speaking  of  the  future  restoration  of 
the  Jews,  says  in  Romans,  11th  chap.  23rd  and 
24th  verses,  ''  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still 
in  unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in  :  for  God  is  able 
to  graft  them  in  again.  For  if  thou  (Gentile) 
wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree,  that  is  wild  by 
nature  (heathenism,)  and  wert  grafted  contrary 
to  nature,  into  a  good  olive  tree  (tlie  Jewish 
church ;)  how  much  more  shall  these  (Jews,) 
who  are  the  natural  branches,  be  grafted  into 
their  own  olive  tree  (church  ?")  The  good 
olive  tree  here  must  mean  the  church  of  God ; 
the  natural  branches  the  Jews,  who,  in  conse- 
quence of  unbelief  were  cut  off;  the  wild  olive 
tree  means  the  Gentiles,  who  ^vere  grafted 
into  the  good  olive  tree, — the  church  of  God. 
Now  the  apostle  teaches,  that  the  Jews,  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  shall  again  he  grafted  into  the 
good  olive  iree^ — the  church  of  God,  The 
natural  consequence  then  is,  that  the  church  of 
God  that  existed  under  the  Old  Testament  Dis- 
pensation must  still  be  standing,  or  in  other 
words,  the  church  of  God  under  both  Dispen- 
sations is  virtually  and  essentially  one  and  the 
same, 

a4 


8 


But  an  objector  says,  '*  this  is  not  so."  To 
which  I  reply,  what !  if  the  church  of  God  is 
represented  by  the  figure  of  a  good  olive  tree, 
and  the  Gentiles,  the  wild  olive  tree  is  grafted 
into  the  good  olive  tree,  how  could  those 
branches  of  the  wild  olive  tree  live  if  the  good 
olive  tree,  into  which  they  are  grafted,  be 
dead  ?  They,  to  exist  at  all,  must  draw  their 
nourishment  from  the  good  olive  tree,  and  if 
that  were  dead,  they  too  must  die.  But  if  that 
lives  and  imparts  nourishment,  the  grafts  placed 
therein,  wiH  live  also.  So  then,  since  the 
church  of  God  is  still  standing,  out  of  which, 
the  Jews  in  consequence  of  unbelief,  were 
cast  for  a  season,  and  the  Gentiles  admitted: 
but  when  the  restoration  of  tlie  Jews  shall  take 
place,  tlicy,  viz.  ihe  Jews  shall  be  grafted  in 
again.  Now  how  can  they  be  grafted  in  again 
if  the  good  olive  tree,  into  which  they  are  to 
be  grafted  again  he  dead?  Surely  if  the  church 
of  God  under  both  dispensations  is  not  virtual- 
ly and  essentially  one  and  the  same,  the  apos- 
tle Paul  w^ould  do  violence  to  language  to  say, 
speaking  of  the  Jews,  that  they  shall  be 
^^  grafted  again  into  their  own  olive  tree^'^^  or 
in  other  words,  be  received  again  into  the 
church  of  God  from  which  they  had  been  ex- 
cluded. 

As  a  confirmation  that  the  church  of  God 
under  both  dispensations  is  the  same,  we  have 
the  authority  of  Christ  himself.  When  he 
was  upon  earth,  he  chose  twelve  apostles. 
They  were  members  of  the  church  under  the 


9 


old  dispensation.  They  attended  the  worship 
and  the  ordinances  under  that  dispensation. 
The  very  niglit  previous  to  his  being  betrayed 
they  partook  of  the  passo\'er,  administered  to 
them  by  his  own  hands,  which  was  one  of  the 
sacraments  of  that  dispensation,  and  at  which 
time  this  ordinance  was  changed,  and  called 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Those  very  men  after  his 
ascension  to  heaven,  were  his  agents  in  extend- 
ing his  kingdom  upon  earth.  They  preached 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  admitted  3000  to 
his  church.  Now  I  ask  the  question,  lucre  they 
cut  off  from  the  church  under  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion and  initiated  into  the  J\^ew  Dispensation  ? 
No."  They  belonged  to  the  same  identical 
church  as  when  tliey  became  believers  in 
Christ  and  ate  the  Passover  Supper  with  him. 
Is  not  this  a  confirmation  without  the  possibil- 
ity of  doubt,  that  the  church  of  God  under 
both  dispensations  is  virtually  and  essentially 
one  and  the  same  ? 

II,    I  DESIRE    TO  GALL  YOUR  ATTENTION    TO 
THE  MEMBERSHIP  OF  INFANTS  IN  THE  CHURCH 

OF  God  under  both  Dispensations,  ct.  In- 
fants were  members  of  the  church  of  God  un- 
der the  former  dispensation.  This  truth  is 
contained  in  several  passa.!?;es  in  the  Bible.  We 
read  in  Genesis  the  3rd  chapter,  that  the  cove- 
nant, which  God  made  with  Adam,  before  he 
was  banished  out  of  Paradise,  included  infants. 
The  covenant,  which  God  made  with  Noah 
after  the  flood,  included  infants.  The  cove- 
nant, which  God  made  with  Abraham  is  equally 

a5 


10 

comprehensive.  In  Gen.  17th  chap,  we  have 
this  covenant  stated  in  this  emphatic  lang-uage, 
"  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  everlasting  covenant :  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee."  Again, 
God  says,  "  this  is  my  covenant,  which  ye 
shall  keep  between  'me  and  you,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee:  Every  man  child  among  you  shall 
be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the 
flesh  of  your  foreskin :  and  it  shall  be  a  token 
of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he 
that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised 
among  you :  every  man  child  in  your  genera- 
tion :  he  that  is  born  in  the  house  or  bought 
with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of 
thy  seed.  He  that  is  born  in  tliy  house,  and 
lie,  that  is  bought  with  money  must  needs  be 
circumcised  and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your 
flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant.'"^ 

Again,  in  Deuteronomy  29th  chapter,  the 
same  covenant  was  promulgated  anew  by  Mo- 
ses as  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham:  and 
represented  as  the  basis  of  that  visible  {)eople 
of  God,  which  should  profess  his  name  in  all 
future  generations :  "  ye  stand  this  day  nil  of 
you  before  the  Lord  your  God  :  your  captains 
of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and  your  officers, 
with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones^ 
your  wives,  and  the  stranger  that  is  in  thy 
camp  from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the 
drawer  of  thy  water :  that  thou  shouldst  enter 
into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into 


11 


his  oath,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  niaketh  with 
thee  this  day :  that  he  may  establish  thee  to 
day  for  a  people  unto  himself,  and  that  he  may 
be  unto  thee  a  God,  as  he  hatli  said  unto  thee, 
and  as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  Fathers,  to 
Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob.  Neither 
with  you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this 
oath  :  but  with  him  tliat  standeth  here  with  us, 
this  day,  before  the  Lord  our  God,  and  also 
with  him  that  is  not  here  with  us  this  day." 
From  these  passages,  "  it  is  evident,  says  Dr. 
Dwight,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
was  made  first  with  himself:  secondly,  with 
his  household  generally  :  thiidly,  with  his  ser- 
-vants  by  name,  whether  they  were  born  in  his 
house  or  bought  with  money  :  fourthly,  with 
his  infant  children^  after^vards  limited  particu- 
larly to  the  descendants  of  Jacob  :  fifthly,  to 
these  descendants  as  a  people  :  sixthly,  to  their 
little  ones,  or  infants  in  every  generation : 
seventhly,  to  the  strangers  who  dwell  in  their 
nation.  To  all  these,  God  covenanted  that  he 
would  be  their  God,  and  that  they  should  be 
his  people." 

In  accordance  with  this  divine  covenant,  we 
have  the  strongest  declarations  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  that  children  had  for  nearly  2000 
years  before  Christ,  been  invariably  received 
into  the  church  of  God.  Not  only  were  the 
children  of  Jewish  parents  thus  admitted  into 
the  church  of  God,  but  the  children  of  those 
parents  when  they  became  proselytes  to  the 
Jewish  religion,  were,  likewise,  admitted  to 

a6 


12 


the  church.  And  although  various  alterations 
had  been  made  in  the  outward  ceremonies  of 
religion,  yet  nothing  had  been  done  to  change 
the  nature  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  which 
God  had  made  with  Abraham.  When  our 
Saviour  was  born  into  this  world,  we  read  that 
he  was  taken  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord  to 
do  for  him  after  the  custom  of  the  Law,  and 
while  there,  good  old  vSimeon  took  him  into 
his  arms,  blessed  God  and  said,  "  Lord,  now 
lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  ac- 
cording to  tliy  word,  foi'  mine  eyes  have  seen 
thy  salvation."  If  children  had  been  excluded 
from  the  church  of  God,  we  would  not  have 
had  this  beautiful  illustration  of  infant  dedica- 
tion. If  children  had  been  excluded  from  the 
church  of  God,  we  would  not  have  had  that 
tender  language  of  our  Saviour,  "  suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.''*  If  children  had  been 
excluded  from  the  church  of  God,  the  Saviour 
would  not  have  uttered  the  general  and  unlim- 
ited command  contained  in  the  text.  "  Go  ye 
and  make  disciples  of  all  nations ^'''^  S^-c. 

In  addition  to  the  above  considerations,  we 
are  informed  in  history,  that  baptism  had  been 
introduced  among  the  Jews,  in  connection  with 
circumcision  as  an  initiatory  rite,  and  was  thus 
applied  to  iiifants.  Sometime  before  Christ 
there  was  a  rigid  sect  among  the  Jews,  called 

*If  Christ  considered  children  proper  subjects  for  the 
kingdom  of  lieaven,  tlien  certainly  they  are  proper  subjects 
for  an  admissioi^  into  his  cliurch  upon  earth. 


13 


the  Essenes,  who  had  been  in  the  habit  of  re- 
ceiving proselytes  by  baptism^  both  adults  and 
children.  Maimonides,  the  great  expounder  of 
the  Jewish  law  declares,  that  "  baptism  was 
in  the  wilderness  before  the  giving  of  the  law." 
Again  he  says,  "  that  was  a  common  axiom, 
no  man  is  a  proselyte  until  he  be  circumcised 
and  baptized.^''  Says  Rabbi  Hona,  "  children 
are  baptized  by  direction  of  the  consistory." 
Says  that  eminent  historian  and  divine.  Dr. 
Miller,  of  Princeton :  "  We  liave  the  most 
abundant  proof  that  the  Jewish  Rabbins  unani- 
mously declare  that,  the  baptism  of  proselytes 
had  been  practised  by  the  Jews  in  all  ages, 
even  from  Moses  down  to  the  time  when  they 
wrote."  A  host  of  other  men,  the  most  learn- 
ed and  candid  make  the  same  acknowledgment. 
EpictituS;,  a  heathen  philosopher,  who  lived  at 
the  time  of  the  apostles,  has  the  following  lan- 
guage in  confirmation  that  baptism  was  cus- 
tomary among  the  Jews;  "  And  when  Ave  see 
any  oae  wavering  we  are  wont  to  say,  this  is 
not  a  Jew,  but  acis  one.  But  when  he  assumes 
the  sentiments  of  one,  who  has  been  baptized 
and  circumcised^  then  he  both  really  is,  and  is 
called  a  Jew."  The  Rev.  Mr.  Booth,  a  dis- 
tinguished Baptist  writer,  admits  that  "  ^/le 
children  of  proselytes  were  baptized  along  with 
thmr  parents^  Says  the  learned  and  pious  Dr. 
Wall,  "  there  never  was  an  age,  at  least  since 
Abraham,  in  which  the  children,  whether  of 
Jews  or  proselytes,  that  were  admitted  into 
covenant,  had  not  some  badge  or  sign  of  such 


14 

their  admission.  The  male  children  of  Abra- 
ham's race  were  entered  by  circumcision.  The 
whole  body  of  the  Jews,  men,  women  and 
children  were  in  Moses'  time  baptized.  After 
which  the  male  children  of  proselytes,  that 
were  admitted  by  circumcision,  baptism  and  a 
sacrifice,  the  female  children  by  a  baptism  and 
a  sacrifice."  In  a  word,  we  have  the  most 
conclusive  evidence  that  children  together  with 
adults  were  baptized  before  the  coming  of 
Christ.  And  as  a  further  confirmation  of  this 
custom,  the  Jews  expected  that  when  the 
Messiah  came,  he  would  baptize :  else  how 
can  we  account  wliy  the  question  was  put  by 
the  Jews  to  John  the  Baptist  as  recorded  by 
John,  1st  chapter,  25t]i  verse,  "  why  haptizest 
thou  then  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ?'' 

In  accordance  with  the  above  considerations, 
the  language  of  the  text  could  not  have  been 
understood  to  mean  that  infants  would  be  ex- 
cluded from  baptism  and  from  the  church  of 
God.  No.  But  on  the  contrary,  since  children 
were  included  in  the  covenant,  which  God  had 
made  with  Abraham,  and  which  too  was  an 
everlasting  covenant,  and  since  children  had 
been  regularly  admitted  to  the  church  of  God 
during  the  period  of  nearly  two  thousand 
years ;  we  are  authorized  to  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that,  if  God  intended  to  have  excluded 
infants  from  the  covenant  of  promise  and  from 
his  church,  he  would  ha  e  giveyi  a  command  to 
that  effect  in  language  as  explicit  as  their  intra- 
duction  into  his  church  had  been  explicit.    But 


15 


on  the  contrary,  we  find,  that  instead  of  such 
an  exclusion  from  his  church,  Christ,  our  Sa- 
viour uttered  the  language  of  the  text,  "  Go 
ye  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations^  baptizing 
them^''''  8{c.  in  other  words,  baptize  all  who 
make  up  a  nation,  men,  women,  and  children. 

b.  From  this  part  of  the  subject,  w^e  pass  on 
to  the  consideration  of  the  New  Testament 
history,  in  which  ice  find  the  principle  of  family 
baptism  as  clearly  stated  as  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. And  here  let  it  be  remembered  that  all 
the  apostles  were  native  Jews.  They  had  of 
course,  been  accustomed  to  the  practice  of 
famjly  baptism  and  infant  membership  to  the 
church  of  God  on  the  faith  of  the  parents. 
They  had  never  seen  or  even  heard  of  a  sect 
that  attempted  to  exclude  children  from  the 
church  of  God,  but  on  the  contrary,  they  had 
always  seen  children,  both  male  and  female, 
universally  admitted  to  membership  in  the 
church  with  their  parents,  on  the  faith  of  the 
parents.  When  the  apostles  therefore  speak 
of  family  baptism,  they  consequently  must  be 
understood  to  mean,  that  children  were  baptiz- 
ed with  their  parents.  In  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  16th  chapter,  15th  verse,  we  have 
described  the  family  of  Lydia,  and  in  the  33rd, 
the  family  of  the  jailor  at  Philippi.  In  Corin- 
thians, chapter  1st,  16th  verse,  the  family  of 
Stephanus. 

What  adds  weight  to  the  fact  that  children 
were  included  in  those  household  baptisms  is 
the  declaration,  which  Peter  made  on  the  day 


16 


of  Pentecost,  Acts  2nd  chapter,  39th  verse, 
"  jPor  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren?^ The  language  of  the  apostle  here  is 
virtually  the  same  as  that  used  in  the  everlast- 
ing covenant  made  hy  God  to  Abraham,  17th 
chapter,  7th  verse,  "7o  he  a  God  to  thee^  and 
unto  thy  seed  after  thee?''  Now  all  must  ac- 
knowledge that  the  word  seed  means  children^ 
and  that  children  means  seed.  And  as  it  is  evi- 
dent that  parents  and  infants  were  intended  by 
the  one,  it  must  be  equally  evident  that  parents 
and  infants  are  intended  by  the  other.  Again, 
remember  that  the  above  declaration  '''-for  the 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.^^'^  was 
made  hy  Peter  to  the  Jews,  at  a  time  when 
thousands  of  them  had  been  assembled  togeth- 
er at  Jerusalem  to  celebrate  one  of  their  great 
feas(s.  I  say  this  declaration  was  made  to  the 
Jews,  who  had  always  seen  children  admitted 
to  the  church,  and  consequently  since  Peter, 
who  had  been  a  Jew  himself,  and  he  too  ad- 
dressing Jews,  must  have  meant  the  promise 
which  God  had  made  to  Abraham  that  "  he 
would  be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed  after  hini 
in  their  generations  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant.'^'' As  if  he  had  said  "  this  promise  is  not 
annulled  under  the  new^  dispensation,  but  it  is 
extended  to  you  and  to  your  children.  You 
can  participate  in  it,  you  and  your  children  as 
well  as  under  the  former  dispensation,  and  he- 
come  saved,  through  the  promised  Messiah." 
Thus  then,  we  have  seen  that  the  church  of 
God  under  t*ie  old  and  the  new  dispensation 


17 


is  virtually  and  essentially  one  and  the  same. 
And  we  have  seen  too  that  infant-membership 
is  a  constituent  part  of  both  dispensations. 

III.  From  this  part  of  the  subject  we  pass 
on  to  consider  the  initiation  of  infants 
INTO  THE  CHURCH  OF  GoD.     During  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation,  circumcision  teas  tlie 
initiatory  rite.     We  are  told  in  Genesis,  17th 
chap.  10th  verse.    "  This  is  my  covenant,  says 
God,  which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me  and 
you  and  thy  seed  after  thee ;  every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised^     Here  you 
perceive  that  circumcision  is  the  initiatory  rite 
into  the  church  of  God.     It  is  both  a  sign  and 
a  seal ;  a  sign  of  the  relation  which  Abraham 
sustained  to  God  and  a  seal,  a  public  confirma- 
tion to  the  fact  that,  God  had  formerly  approv- 
ed of  him  and  that  he  should  be  the  father,  the 
illustrious  example  of  the  faithful  both  of  tlie 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles  throughout  the  world. 
That  circumcision  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant,  which  God  made  with  Abraham,  vre 
have  this  express  declaration  of  the  apostle 
Paul  in  Romans,  4th  chapter,  11th  verse,  "he 
(Abraham)  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he 
had  yet  being  uncircumcised."     Here  then  we 
have  a  sign,  and  a  seal  of  the  rigfiteousness  of 
faith.     This  is  the  very  subject,  that  the  apos- 
tle Paul  is  urging  as  the  ground,  by  which  the 
sinner  is    justified   and   has   peace   with   God 
throufich  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  of  which  .lus- 
tification  the  apostle  cites  Abraham  as  an  lUus- 


IS 

trious  example?  Thus  you  perceive  that 
Abraham  received  circumcision  as  the  seal. 
But  the  question  arises,  ivhat  is  the  import  of  the 
seal?  It  is  the  renewal  of  the  heart  and  of  the 
spirit.  This  was  the  true  circumision  of  which 
the  outward  circumcision  was  given  as  the 
sign.  The  apostle  Paul  says  in  Ramans,  2nd 
chap.  29th  verse,  "  circumcision  is  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter." 
That,  is  the  real  import  of  the  outward  sign 
circumcision. 

J\hiv  baptism  is  the  seal  and  sign  of  the  same 
thing.  The  apostle  m  Acts,  22nd  chap.  16th 
verse  says,  ''  arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash 
away  thy  sins."  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
baptism  does  not  literally  wash  away  sins. 
No,  but  it  is  truly  the  sign  or  seal  of  tlie  wash- 
ing away  of  sins,  and  of  acceptance  with  God 
in  justification  through  the  righteousness  of 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  real  wash- 
ing away  of  sin  is  effected  only  by  the  blood 
of  Christ,  of  wiiich  baptism  is  only  the  seal, 
in  the  same  manner  that  circumcision  under  the 
old  dispensation  was  the  seal  of  the  rii^hteous- 
ness  of  faith :  and  the  blood  of  Christ^is  shad- 
owed forth  by  tiie  application  of  water  in  bap- 
tism. A  question  arises  here,  ^chat  is  the  im- 
port of  this  seal  effected  by  baptism?  It  is  the 
cleansing  of  the  heart  from  the  pollutions  of 
sin  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  called  in 
scripture,  the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  or  as  it  is 
termed  by  the  apostle,  "  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration and  tlib  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 


19 

Here  then  you  evidently  perceive,  that  as  cir- 
cumcision under  the  old  dispensation  was  the 
sign  and  seal  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  so 
baptism,  under  the  new,  is  in  like  manner  the 
sign  and  seal  of  our  acceptance  with  God. 
Both  effect  precisely  the  same  thing. 

Again,  tlie  apostle  does  not  stop  here,  but  he 
declares  that  baptism  is  the  sign  of  the  circum- 
cision of  the  hearty  or  in  other  words,  it  is 
christian  circumcision.  He  says  in  Collossians 
2nd  cliapter,  11th  and  12th  verses,  "in  whom 
(Christ)  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  tlesh  :  by  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  buried  with  him  in  baptism." 
What  is  a  circumcision  made  without  hands  ? 
It  is  the  regeneration  of  tlie  heart  as  declared 
by  God  himself  in  Deuteronomy,  30th  chapter, 
6th  verse.  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circum- 
cise thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to 
love  the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thy  heart  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live.'' 
Again,  what  is  this  circumcision  of  Christ?  It 
cannot  mean  his  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  when 
eight  days  old.  Neither  can  it  be  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  for  this  is  expressed  above 
as  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  but  it 
is  our  being  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism." 
Thus  it  is  evident  that  christian  circumcision 
is  New  Testament  baptism.  And  baptism  is 
christian  circumcision.  Hence  baptism  takes 
the  place  of  circumcision.  In  a  word,  baptism 
answers  the  same  thino;  as  circumcision.     It  is 


20 


the  seal  of  the  same  everlasting  covenant.  It 
is  ordained  for  the  same  church.  It  answers 
precisely  the  same  object,  viz. — the  cleansing 
of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

As  an  evidence  of  which  we  have  the  exam- 
ple of  Christy  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  him- 
self When  he  commissioned  his  apostles  to 
go  and  make  disciples,  &c.,  they  belonged  to 
the  church  under  the  old  dispensation,  they 
had  not  received  christian  baptism  by  the  use 
of  water,  in  any  mode,  but  had  only  been  cir- 
cumcised, and  in  virtue  of  their  circumcision 
and  faith  in  Christ,  they  by  Christ  were  made 
the  pillars  of  the  church  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation. Now  if  circumcision  was  not  a 
spiiitual  ordinance  and  an  initiation  into  the 
church  of  God,  why  were  they  not  baptized 
before  celebrating  the  christian  passover  with 
Christ  and  receiving  the  great  commission  in 
the  text,  to  be  the  means  of  extending  his 
kingdom  throughout  the  world  ? 

The  question  arises,  why  then  were  they, 
who  had  been  circumcised,  not  acknowledged 
members  of  the  church,  at  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost? Why  icere  they  baptized?  I  answer, 
because  that  circumcision,  had  been  abolished 
and  baptism  instituted  ;  and  because  tliey  had 
not  believed  in  Christ,  until  after  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  new  dispensation  by  the  apostles, 
they  therefore  were  required  to  be  initialed 
into  that  dispensation  by  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism— the  ji^iiliatory  rite. 


21 


a.  But  notwithstanding'  this  scriptural  repre- 
sentation of  the  substitution  of  baptism  instead 
of  circumcision,  yet  an  objection  is  raised, 
"  This  is  not  50,  baptism  is  a  spiritual  ordi- 
nance^ hut  circumcision  is  not?''  I  admit  that 
in  the  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham,  there 
w^ere  national  blessings  stated,  but  at  the  same 
time,  we  have  the  positive  declarations  of  God 
himself  that  spiritual  blessings  of  the  highest 
degree  were  therein  contained.  God  coven- 
anted with  Abraham  in  the  following  explicit 
language,  "  to  be  a  God  uyito4hee  and  thy  seed 
after  thee?''  And  again  in  a  ratification  of  this 
same  covenant  in  Deut.  29th  chapter,  Moses 
expressly  declares,  '■'•That  he  (God)  may  estab- 
lish thee  to  day  for  a  people  unto  himself  and 
that  he  may  be  unto  thee  a  God?''  Declarations 
thus  solemnly  made  by  God  himself  cannot  be 
understood  in  any  other  light  than  meaning 
spiritual  blessings.  If  they  do  not  mean  spiri- 
tual blessings,  what  else  can  they  mean  ?  Do 
we  read  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  that  God 
ever  promised,  any  people,  that  he  would  be 
their  God  in  a  political  point  of  view }  No. 
There  is  no  instance  to  be  found.  But  we 
have  many  declarations,  that  he  in  a  spiritual 
point  of  view,  is  a  God  to  protect  and  de- 
fend,^to  bless  and  to  save  his  people.  Look 
for  example  in  Rev.  21st  chapter,  7th  verse, 
where  he  says,  "  He  that  overcometli  shall  in- 
herit all  things  and  /  uill  be  his  God  and  he 
shall  be  my  son."  Evidently  here  the  highest 
spiritual  blessing  is  implied,  'In  a  similar  point 


22 

of  view,  the  declarations,  in  the  covenant, 
whach  God  made  vvith  Abraham  must  be  un- 
derstood to  imply  spiritual  blessings  and  that 
too  of  the  highest  degree. 

Again,  if  baptism  has  not  come  in  the  place 
of  circumcision,  then  a  highly  spiritual  blessing 
has  been  annulled.  Under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation  there  were  two  sacraments,  Cir- 
cumcision and  the  Passover.  The  Lord's  Sup- 
per has  taken  the  place  of  the  passover,  and 
il  baptism  does  not  take  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, then  the^hurch  of  God,  under  the  new 
dispensation,  has  been  deprived  of  a  sacrament, 
which  has  been  declared  by  the  apostle  Paul 
to  be  of  peculiar  advantage.  The  question 
was  asked,  what  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew, 
or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision }  The 
apostle  in  Rom.  Srd  chapter,  1st  verse  replies, 
"  much  every  way,  chiefly  because  that  unto  them 
were  committed  the  oracles  of  God,''  that  is,  trie 
scripture  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  the 
law  of  Moses  and  those  types,  promises  and 
prophecies  wliich  relate  to  Chi-ist  and  the  gos- 
pel. ^  Now  if  baptism  does  not  take  the  place 
of  circumcision,  then  that  sacrament,  which 
God  had  ordained  for  the  introduction  of  in- 
fants into  the  church  of  God,  has  been  lost. 
Does  then  no  sacrament,  ordained  to  be  the 
seal  of  the  everlasting  covenant  to  infants,  suc- 
ceed It.?  Is  then  the  New  Testament  church, 
in  all  her  fulness— perfection  and  unlimited  ex- 
tension, less  gracious  to  infants  than  the  old, 
which  embraced  them  and  which  had  a  sacra- 


23 

ment  ordained,  for  their  admission  and  partici- 
pation in  all  her  spiritual  blessings  ?  No  !  who 
can  for  a  moment,  indulge  the  thought?  must 
we  not  hence  conclude  that  baptism  by  the 
authority  of  our  Lord  himself,  has  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision;  that  these  baptized, 
have  the  same  spiritual  blessings  in  the  New 
Testament  church,  as  those,  that  were  circum- 
cised under  the  old  dispensation,  enjoyed  ? 

b.  Another  objection  raised,  is,  but  circum- 
cision was  applied  to  males  only?  Admit  it, 
but  females  nevertheless  participated,  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  in  all  the 
spiritual  blessings  of  the  everlasti7ig  covenant. 
They  not  only  were  included,  but  were  virtu- 
ally circumcised  in  the  males.  Paul  says  in 
1  Cor.  1 1th  chap.  3rd  verse,  that  the  "  head  of 
the  woman  is  the  man."  What,  therefore,  was 
done  to  the  head  was  done  to  the  body,  or  in 
other  words,  what  was  done  to  the  man,  was 
virtually  done  to  the  woman.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  new  dispensation,  an  initia- 
tory rite  was  established  for  admission  into  the 
church,  which  could  be  applied  to  both  sexes. 
It  was  baptism.  In  view  of  which  the  apostle 
Paul  in  Gal.  3rd  chap.  28th  verse,  says  "  There 
is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond 
nor  free,  thei*e  is  neither  male  nor  female^ 
Thus  you  perceive  that  the  distinction  which 
once  existed  between  male  and  female  is  not 
only  abolished,  but  the  distinction  likewise  be- 
tween Jew  and  Greek,  bond  and  free.  The 
blessings  of  Christianity  are  now  extended  to 


24 


all  without  regard  to  nation  and  condition,  to 
young  and  to  old,  whether  male  or  female.  Or 
as  the  commission  of  Christ  is  in  the  text 
"  Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations^  kctptiz- 

c.  Another  objection  raised  against  infant 
baptism  is,  but  Christ  declares,  "  He  that  he- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  savedP  How 
then  can  children  be  proper  subjects  for  baptism^ 
seeing  that  they  cannot  believe  ?  To  which  I 
reply,  let  us  read  the  whole  of  that  passage. 
It  is  recorded  in  Mark,  chap.  16th,  verse  16th. 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damn- 
ed." Thus  then  you  perceive  that  by  taking 
the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  in  connection 
with  the  former,  if  believing  is  necessary  in  a 
subject  for  baptism,  then  believing  is  equally 
necessary  for  salvation,  and  the  legitimate  con- 
clusion is  that,  because  children  cannot  believe, 
therefore  children  cannot  be  saved.  Or  to 
place  this  kind  of  reasoning  in  the  form  of  a 
syllogism.  The  objector's  argument  stands  as 
follows : 

Faith  is  required  in  order  to  baptism. 

But  infants  cannot  exercise  faith. 

Therefore,  infants  cannot  be  baptized. 

We  will  follow  out  this  same  kind  of  reason- 
ing, based  on  the  latter  part  of  the  verse : 

Faith  is  required  in  order  to  salvation. 

But  infants  cannot  exercise  faith. 

Therefore,  infants  cannot  be  saved. 


25 


Thus  then  the  objection  not  only  excludes 
infants  from  the  church  of  God,  but  consigns 
them  to  everlasting  woe  and  destruction.  Aw- 
ful conclusion  ! !  What  christian  parent's  heart 
does  not  recoil  at  the  very  idea  ? 

If  this  passage  of  scripture  is  produced  to 
oppose  infant  baptism,  then  it  militates  against 
the  text.  ••'  Go  ami  make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions^ hapizing^^''  Sfc.  where  infants  are  evi- 
dently included.  No,  brethren,  not  only  has 
this  passage  of  scripture  no  reference  to  in- 
fants, but  likewise  all  similar  passages  which 
require  spiritual  acts  to  a  proper  reception  of 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  :  such  as,  ^'  Repent 
and  be  baptized — Believe  and  be  baptized," 
&c.  All  sue! I  exhortations  are  addressed  only 
to  adults.  And  when  we  are  called  upon  to 
instruct  adult  persons,  who  have  never  been 
baptized,  we  always  address  them  in  the  above 
scriptural  language.  They  have  no  reference 
whatever  to  infants.  As  such  they  are  under- 
stood, generally,  by  the  most  learned  and  pious 
men. 

Again,  we  are  often  told  that  faitJi  sliould 
pjecede  baptism  as  in  the  above  passage ; 
"'/ie  that  helievcih  and  is  baptized."  True  be- 
lievins;  is  here  put  before  baptism,  but  then  let 
it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  reverse  too  is  the 
case.  Clirist  says  in  John,  3rd  chapter,  5th 
verse,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  oi^  loater  and 
of  the  spirit,"  &c.  John  says  in  Matthew,  3rd 
chapter,  lltli  verse,  "I  indeed  baptize  with 
water — he,  viz.,  Christ  shall  baptize  you  with 


26 


the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  baptism  is  placed  be- 
fore regeneration — the  very  thing  which  it  im- 
parts. The  objectors  arguments  based  upon 
the  order  of  language  is  therefore  not  only 
against  him,  but  it  is  more  in  favour  of  putting 
baptism  before  believing  tlian  after  it. 

d.  Another  objection  raised  against  infant 
baptism,  is  '■^  what  benefit  can  it  be  to  baptize 
unco7iscious  babes  ?''  I  would  answer  this 
question  by  asking  another.  What  benefit  was 
it  to  those  children,  Mark  1 0th  chapter,  16th 
verse,  wdiich  our  Saviour,  when  upon  earth, 
took  into  his  arms  and  blessed  ?  Could  they 
understand  the  import  of  that  blessi7ig?  They 
could  certainly  understand  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  as  well  as  they  could  the  blessing  of 
Christ  pronounced  upon  them  ?  Let  it  here  be 
remarked  that  laying  on  of  hands  was  an  an- 
cient and  a  venerable  custom.  The  apostle 
Paul  in  Heb.  6th  cha|).  2nd  verse,  ranks  it  with 
baptisms,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and 
eternal  judgment.  What  that  peculiar  bless- 
ing consisted  in,  which  our  Saviour  pronounced 
upon  those  unconscious  children,  we  are  not 
informed,  but  it  must  have  been  no  ordinary 
blessing.  And  what  is  baptism,  but  a  dedica- 
tion to  God  so  that  his  blessing  should  rest 
upon  them .''  Intimately  connected  with  this 
subject,  is  their  capability  of  complying  with 
the  obligations  of  their  baptism.  Brethren, 
baptism  imposes  no  new  obligation,  which  we 
are  not  previously  bound  to  obey.  It  is  only 
an  acknowled^-ment  of  that  oblisration.  or  in 


27 


other  words,  it  is  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science towards  God  and  man.  And  children 
under  the  new  dispensation,  are  under  no  great- 
er obligations  to  obey  the  laws  of  God  now^ 
than  children  were  under  the  former  dispensa- 
tion. Paul  says  expressly,  "  I  testify  unto 
every  man,  that  is  circumcised,  is  a  debtor  to 
the  whole  law."  Why  I  ask  are  not  children 
now  as  capable  of  the  baptismal  obligations  to 
the  laws  of  Christ  as  the  circumcised  children 
of  the  Jews  were  of  being  debtors  to  the  laws 
of  Moses?     Certainly  just  as  capable. 

Again,  another  answer  to  the  above  objec- 
tion is,  because  it  is  GocVs  commands.  The 
point  at  issue  is  not  between  the  objector  and 
myself,  but  between  himself  and  the  God  of 
heaven.  He  has,  in  the  most  explicit  manner, 
declared  that  every  male  child  of  the  Jewish 
people  should  be  circumcised  on  tlie  eighth  day 
for  an  everlasting  cove^iant.  And  since  that 
everlasting  covenant  has  not  been  annulled,  but 
is  still  in  force,  although  the  rite  for  admission 
into  the  church  has  only  been  changed,  and  is 
extended  to  both  sexes,  it  is  therefore  the 
duty — the  bounden  duty  of  every  christian  par- 
ent to  have  his  children  solemnly  dedicated  to 
God  by  baptism.  He  has  no  more  right  to 
withhold  his  children  from  this  ordinance,  than 
a  Jewish  parent  had  his  son  from  being  circum- 
cised. What  did  the  wise  man  mean  when  he 
said,  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  that  he 
should  go,"  &c.,  but  that  it  directly  implied,  a 
dedication  of  him  to  God  .'*    What  did  the  apos- 


ts 


lie  Paul  in  Eph.  6th  chapter,  4th  verse,  mean 
when  he  said  "  and  ye  fathers,  provoke  not 
your  children  to  wrath :  but  bring  tJicm  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,"  but 
that  it  directly  implied  a  dedicaiion  to  God? 

But  a  question  arises  here,  "  if  then  the  one 
of  the  pareyits  be  a  cJiristian  and  the  other  not^ 
ought  their  children  to  be  baptized  ?""  To  whicli 
I  answer,  that  a  similar  question  was  put  to  the 
apostle  Paul,  as  recorded  in  1  Cor.  7th  chap. 
14th  verse.  The  following-  is  his  answer,  "  the 
unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  tlie  wife: 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
liusband,  else  ^vere  your  childien  unclean,  bid 
VvOiv  are  they  holy^  But  how  are  they  hohfi 
In  being-  separated  from  the  rest  of  tlie  world 
and  dedicated  to  God.  Holiness,  in  scripture, 
is  used  in  a  two-fold  sense.  In  one  sense,  it 
means  purity  of  heart  and  life;  in  the  other, 
separated  from  common  use  and  dedicated  to 
God.  And  as  persons,  ])laces,  &c.  must  be 
dedicated  to  God,  in  order  to  their  bein^-  ac- 
coimted  holy^  so  children  must  be  dedicated  to 
God,  in  order  that  they  may  be  tJius  rendered 
holy. 

But  an  objection  is  raised,  ''  if  children  are 
thus  accounted  holy  by  virtue  of  the  faitli  of 
one  of  the  parents,  why  then  n-ill  not  the  ^mhe- 
licving  iiarent  be  accoimled  equally  holy  ?"  To 
which  I  reply,  if  the  apostle  had  so  understood 
it,  he  would  evidently  have  declared  it,  but 
since  he  has  not  said  so,  we  are  not  to  infer 
tliat  the  unbelieving  parent  is  thus  accounted 


29 

holy.  His  reasonin;^  has  reference  only  to 
children^  who  are  accounted  holy  alone  hy  vir- 
tue of  the  faith  of  one  of  their  parents. 

Another  question  arises  here,  "  if  children 
are  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  in  view  of 
their  baptism^  ivhy  then  are  they  prevented  from 
coming  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  V  To  which 
1  reply,  in  the  old  dispensation,  children  were 
memhers  of  the  churcli  of  God,  but  they  how- 
ever were  not  pernnitted  to  partake  of  the 
Passover  until  they  had  arrived  at  a  proper  age, 
so  as  to  understand  its  object  and  design — as- 
sume the  obligations  required  and  the  engage- 
nients  of  the  everlasting  covenant.  So,  under 
the  new  dispensation,  baptized  children,  al- 
thiOugh  they  are  members  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  but  yet  are  not  permitted  to  participate 
in  its  spiritual  privileges,  until  tliey  too  arrive 
at  a  proper  age — have  the  proper  instruction — 
can  examine  their  own  hearts  and  are  able  to 
discern  the  Lord's  body,  then  and  not  till  then 
are  they  received  into  full  communion  in  the 
church  and  are  entitled  to  all  the  spiritual  pri= 
vileges  of  said  church. 

Again,  another  question  arises,  ^'  was  not  the 
Lord's  Supper  administered  in  former  ages  to 
children  ?''l  I  admit  it,  but  those  who  did  thus 
administer  it  to  them  had  no  scriptural  warrant 
for  so  doing.  In  like  manner,  we  are  inform- 
ed that  those  who  were  immersed,  in  former 
ages,  were  thus  immersed  entirely  naked^ 
whether  they  w^ere  men,  women  or  children.  It 
the  one  was  improper  so  was  the  other.     If  the 


one  was  unwarranted  by  the  sacred  scriptures 
so  was  the  other.  We  will  therefore  place 
both  in  the  same  scale  and  say  that  the  people 
in  those  days  had  superstitious  notions  in  rela- 
tion to  the  ordinances  of  God. 

e.  Another  objection  is  urged,  ''  that  there  is 
no  instance  on  record  in  the  JYew  Testament  of 
infant  baptism^  To  which  I  reply,  that  in  all 
the  examples  of  household  baptisms  in  the 
New  Testament,  there  is  no  mention  made  that 
there  were  any  adults.  The  objector  cannot 
deny  tiiat  Lydia  and  Stephanus,  Cornelius  and 
the  jailor  were  the  only  believing  members  of 
their  respective  families.  It  is  said  expressly 
of  Lydia,  that  the  Lord  opened  the  heart  of 
Lydia.  Not  a  word  is  said  that  any  of  her 
household  had  either  repented  or  had  exercised 
faith  besides  herself  But  yet  we  are  told  that 
ber  household  was  baptized.  Here  tben  it  is 
manifest,  that  whether  her  family  consisted  of 
adults  or  children,  they  were  baptized  on  the 
faith  of  the  parent  or  heads  of  the  household. 
Now  if  the  objector  denies  that  there  were 
any  children  in  these  household  baptisms,  then 
he  must  admit  that  those  adults  were  baptized 
williout  manifesting  either  repentance  or  faith; 
which  principle  is  directly  opposed  to  his  "be- 
liever's baptism."  He  no  doubt  would  sooner 
acknowledge  that  they  were  children.  This 
is  tlie  only  rational  conclusion  to  which  we  can 
arrive.  These  housebolds  therefore  consisted 
of  children,  who  were  thus  baptized  on  the 
faith  of  the^parents  alone. 


31 


Again,  as  a  confirmation  of  tbe  above  con- 
elusion,  we  are  informed  that  there  is  a  Syriac 
version  of  the  Bible,  whose  date  is  assigned  to 
the  first  century,  which  has  the  word  "  house- 
hohV  translated  ''  children.'^''  "  Lydia  was  bap- 
tized and  her  children^  ''  The  jailor  and  ids 
children^''''  &.c. 

The  above  examples  are  the  offering  up  of 
tlieir  respective  families  to  tlie  Lord.  They 
are  just  such  accounts  as  would  now  be  given 
of  a  household  or  family  that  were  baptized  on 
the  faith  of  their  parents. 

But  there  is  a  striking  example  of  infant 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament 
uhich  cannot  be  successfully  contradicted.  In 
1  Cor.  10th  chapter,  we  are  told  "  that  all  our 
fathers  were  under  the  cloud  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea :  and  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Now  if 
the  baptism  of  the  fathers  was  valid,  then  that 
of  the  childi-en  who  accompanied  them  W'as 
equally  valid  with  that  of  the  fathers.  Who 
will  deny  this.? 

As  an  evidence  that  there  were  children  who 
actually  accompanied  their  parents  through  the 
Red  Sea,  we  have  the  fact  stated,  preceding 
that  eventful  period  in  Ex.  12th  chapter,  37th 
verse,  "  And  the  children  of  Israel  journeyed 
from  Rameses  to  Succoth,  about  six  hundred 
thousand  on  foot  that  were  men,  besides  chil- 
dreny  Subsequently,  an  allusion  to  them  is 
made  in  Deut.  1st  chap.  39th  verse,  in  the  fol- 
lowing language,  "  Moreover  your  little  ones^ 


3t 


which  ye  said  sliould  be  a  prey,  ond  yozir  chil- 
dren which  in  that  day  had  no  knowledge  6e- 
tween  good  and  evil^  they  shall  go  in  thither, 
and  unto  them  will  I  give  it,  and  they  shall 
possess  it."  With  the  exception  of  Caleb  and 
Joshua  all  the  (then)  fathers,  who  left  Egypt, 
died  in  the  wilderness,  but  their  children  had 
grown  up^ — they  become  fathers — tliey  togeth- 
er with  Caleb  and  Joshua  took  possession  of 
the  land  of  Canaan — they  constituted  the  prin- 
cipal part  of  the  Israelitish  community  and  of 
the  church  of  God  from  that  time.*  Nay,  in 
the  language  of  Moses,  Deut.  5th  chapter,  3rd 
verse,  "  The  Lord  made  not  this  covenant  with 
our  leathers,  but  with  us,  even  us  who  are  all  of 
us  here  alive  this  day."  Here  then  we  see 
that  those  who  were  little  ones  and  children, 
who  in  that  day  had  no  knowledge  between  good 
and  evil^  constituted  a  part  of  the  fathers  spok- 
en of  by  the  apostle  -in  the  above  chapter. 
They,  in  their  infancy  were  baptized  nnto  Mo- 
ses and  in  the  cloudy  and  thus  their  baptism  pre" 
sents  us  with  a  striking  example  of  infant  bap- 
tism in  the  JYew  Testament, 

But  again^  in  connection  with  God's  provi- 
dential dealings  with  the  Israelites  in  conse- 
qnence  of  their  sins,  the  apostle,  in  the  above 
chapter  ad(!s  another  idea,  which  is  contained 
in  the  6th  verse,  but  particularly  in  the  11th 
verse,  in  the  following  language :  "  Now  "all 
these  things  happened  unto  them  for  ensaraples 

*Exodn3  lOlh  rliapfrr,  9,  10,  11  and  24t]i  verses.  Num. 
14th  chap.  £8— 31  verses. 


33 


i.  e.  types,  patterns.  And  since  infant  baptism 
constituted  one  of  these  things  alluded  to  by 
tlie  apostle  as  a  type  or  pattern  of  the  New 
Dispensation,  therefore  we  have  here  a  strik- 
ing example  of  infant  baptism  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  such  a  one  that  we  may 
safely  and  lawfully  follow.  "  Moreover,  breth- 
ren, says  the  apostle,  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
be  ignorant  how  that  our  fathers  were  baptized^'''' 
&c.,  as  if  his  object  was  to  impress  upon  their 
minds,  that  they  had  been  dedicated  to  God  by 
their  baptism^  and  were  thus  placed  under  pe- 
culiar obligations  to  serve  the  Lord,  their  God. 
/.  Another  objection  gravely  urged  against 
infant  baptism  is,  "  that  children  ought  not  to  be 
baplized^  because  Jesus  Christ  himself  was  not 
baptized  before  he  was  thirty  years  of  ageV 
This  objection  implies  too  much.  If  we  are 
striatly  to  follow  out  the  example  of  Christ, 
then  no  one  can  be  baptized,  however  pious 
and  devoted,  until  he  too  has  arrived  to  the  age 
of  thirty.  To  this,  the  objector  would  not 
v/iilingly  consent,  yet  it  is  in  strict  accordance 
with  his  own  prrnciples  of  reasoning. 

Again,  let  it  be  remarked  that  the  baptism  by 
John  was  not  a  christian  baptism.  To  con- 
vince you  on  this  subject,  I  will  refer  you  to 
the  mode  of  christian  baptism  in  the  next  dis- 
course. 

But  the  question  returns,  "  why  then  was  Je- 
sus Christ  baptized  by  John?^''  I  answer,  he 
represented  the  High  Priest,  and  was  to  be  the 
liigli  Priest  over  the  house  of  God.    His  bap- 


34 

tism  was  his  introduction  into  that  sacred  of- 
fice. "  The.  Mosaic  law  required  every  priest 
Avhen  thirty  years  of  age  (Num.  43rd  chapter, 
23rd,  30th  and  35th  verses,)  to  he  consecrated 
to  their  sacred  work  by  being*  sprinkled  and 
washed  with  water  (Lev.  8th  chap.  6th  verse,) 
as  a  symbol  of  the  anointing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  they  were  also  anointed  with  oil.  Now 
mark  the  coincidence.  When  Jesus  carne  to 
John,  he  was  about  thirty  years  old  (Luke  3rd 
chap.  21st  and  23rd  verses,)  and  was  just  about 
entering  upon  his  office  as  Priest:  after  bap- 
tism he  was  anointed  by  the  decent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."*  We  read  in  Luke,  4th  chap., 
that  he  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  and  read  the  following  to  show  his 
fulfilment  in  himself;  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
is  upon  me,  because  he  has  anointed  me  (ech- 
rise.  "  This  term,  says  the  learned  Dr.  BIf)om- 
field,  signifies  not  so  much  being  anointed^  as 
iiKatgurated^  introduced  into  an  office,)  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor,"  &c.  Here 
then  you  see  that  immediately  after  his  intro- 
duction into  the  High  Priest's  office,  he  enter- 
ed publicly  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  tiiat  office.  And  here  you  see  too  that  his 
baptism  was  his  introduction  into  that  office : 
for  the  apostle  Paul  says  in  Heb.  5th  chapter, 
5th  verse,  that  Christ  did  not  glorify  himself 
to  be  made  rt  High  Priest:  but  he  that  said 
unto  him,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  to  day  have  I 
begotten  thee."    This  passage  of  scripture  de- 

*Rcv.  Messrs  Cooke  ani!  Towiie, 


flares  explicitly  that  God  made  Christ  a 
High  Priest^  when  he  uttered  the  wordi^. 
"  Th(m  art  my  Son,'''*  &c.  Now  this  was  the 
same  language  that  God  used,  (Luke  3id  chap. 
22nd  verse,)  at  his  baptism. 

Again,  to  comply  with  the  former  dispensa- 
tion, Christ  had  been  circumcised,  and  now 
when  about  to  introduce  the  new  dispensation, 
it  was  necessary  for  him  to  observe  the  rite  in 
his  own  person,  w^hich  w^as  established  as  the 
initiation  into  this  new  dispensation.  Hence 
he  was  baptized  by  John  who  was  the  last 
prophet  under  the  law  and  w^ho  too  w'as  de- 
clared to  be  the  forerunner  of  Christ.  And 
although  he  was  thus  baptized  by  John,  yet 
christian  baptism  was  not  established  until 
three  years  afterwards,  viz.  not  until  Christ 
himself  gave  the  apostles  the  commission  con- 
tained in  the  text,  "  Go  ye,"  &c. 

g.  Another  objection  urged  with  great  con- 
fidence is,  "  where  is  the  express  command  in 
the  Bible  that  infants  shall  he  baptized  'P  To 
which  I  reply,  where  is  the  express  command 
that  children  shall  not  be  baptized  ?  We  have 
already  shown  that  infants  have,  during  a  space 
of  nearly  two  thousand  years  before  Ciirist, 
been  admitted  members  of  the  church  of  God, 
by  an  express  command  of  God  himself  and 
that  too,  in  accordance  with  his  covenant  which 
is  everlasting,  and  before  they  can  be  excluded 
from  ihe  church  notv,  whose  blessings  and 
privileges  are  in  every  respect  more  extensive, 
lliere  certainly  must  be  an  express  command 


36 


to  tliat  effect.  We  have  a  right  to  ask  this 
question  of  the  opposers  of  infant  baptism.  In 
what  chapter  and  verse,  in  ihe  New  Testa- 
ment, is  that  prohibition  to  be  found  .?  What ! 
exclude  infants  from  the  clmrch  of  God,  to 
which  they  have  an  unalienable  right  guaran- 
teed them  by  the  great  Head  of  the  church ; 
Avhich  right  has  been  confirmed  by  Him,  in  the 
com.mission,  which  he  gave  his  apostles,  as 
contained  in  the  words  of  the  text.  "  Go  ye 
and  make  disciples  of  all  7iations  baptizing ^''^ 

Again,  if  the  objection  against  infant  bap- 
tism is  still  urged,  because  we,  in  the  New 
Testament,  have  no  express  command  in  so 
many  words  to  baptize  them,  and  therefore 
they  ought  not  to  be  baptized :  then  by  parity 
of  reasoning,  the  objector,  to  be  consistent 
wit!)  himself,  ought  not  allow  females  to  come 
to  the  table  of  the  Lord,  because  there  is  not, 
in  so  many  words,  an  express  command  to  that 
effect — then  he  ought  likewise  to  reject  the 
christian  Sabbath  for  the  same  reason.  If  you 
ask  the  objector  wliy  be  admits  females  to  the 
communion,  he  will  not  pretend  to  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  an  express  command  in  tliat 
respect,  but  he  will  proceed  to  prove  their 
right  by  inference  that  they  have  immortal 
souls — that  they  can  exercise  faith,  &c.,  and 
therefore  they  ought  to  commune.  Here  you 
perceive  the  objector  excludes  infants  from  the 
oixlinancG  of  baptism,  because  he  does  not  iu 
so  many  words  find  an  express  command  iu 


37 


the  New  Testament  to  that  effect,  but  notwith- 
standing this,  he  will  admit  females  to  the 
communion  without  such  an  express  com- 
mand ! !  Is  this  manner  of  reasoning  correct 
and  conclusive  ?  Is  it  honest  and  sincere  ? 
No,  brethren,  no.  We  have  the  authority  and 
the  sanction  of  Christ  himself  in  favor  of  in- 
fant baptism,  and  therefore  let  us  esteem  it  a 
privilege  that  we  and  our  children  can  be  unit- 
ed to  the  same  church  and  participate  in  the 
same  covenanted  blessings.  Let  us  consecrate 
them  to  our  God  and  adopt  the  language  of  the 
christian  poet : 

"  We  bring  them,  Lord,  with  thankful  hearts, 

And  yield  them  up  to  thee ; 
Joyful  that  we  ourselves  are  thine, 

Thine  may  our  offspring  be." 

From  this  part  of  the  subject  we  pass  on  to 
consider  in  tlie  third  place,  the  historical  ac- 
counts of  infant  baptism.  Some  of  the  oppo- 
nents of  infant  baptism  have  gravely  declared 
that  it  is  of  recent  origin.  Others  declare  that 
it  is  the  origin  of  popery.  Others  again  say 
that  it  commenced  in  the  second  century. 
Passing  by  these  conflicting  representations, 
by  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism  respecting 
the  time  of  its  commencement,  we  have,  after 
leaving  the  scriptural  accounts,  the  most  abun- 
dant and  conclusive  evidence  in  history  of  its 
continuation  from  the  time  of  the  apostles. 
Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  who  is  decidedly  one 
of  the  most  candid  and  learned  historians  of 


38 


o«r  country,  speaks  in  the  following  energetic 
language  on  this  subject.  "  I  can  assure  you, 
my  friends,  with  the  utmost  candor  and  con- 
fidence, after  much  careful  inquiry  on  the  sub- 
ject, that  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years 
after  the  birth  of  Christ,  there  was  not  a  single 
society  of  professing  christians  on  earth,  wlio 
0|) posed  infant  baptism  on  any  thing  like  the 
grounds  wdiich  distinguish  our  modern  baptist 
brethren."  Similar  declarations  have  been 
made  by  a  host  of  other  men ;  men  learned, 
candid  and  pious ;  men  who  have  no  other  ob- 
ject in  view  but  the  truth,  on  this  interesting 
subject,  have  given  us  their  most  decided  tes- 
timony in  the  belief  of  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism,  not  only  during  the  apostolic  age,  but 
its  continuance  from  that  time  to  the  present. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  that  the  apostles,  Paul 
and  Peter  lived  till  about  the  year  sixty-six  in 
ihe  first  century,  and  that  the  apostle  John 
lived  till  about  the  year  101. 

rt.  Justin  Martyr,  who  is  spoken  of  in  the 
highest  terms  for  truth,  was  born  about  the 
year  100.  He  says  in  his  writings,  "  There 
are  many  among  us  of  both  sexes,  some  sixty 
and  some  seventy  years  old,  who  were  made 
disciples  of  Christ  from  their  childhood." 
This  is  an  explicit  testimony  of  the  baptism  of 
infants,  even  before  the  death  of  the  apostle 
John. 

b.  Irenaeus,  a  very  pious  and  discreet  man, 
wrote  about  fifty  or  sixty  years  after  the  apos- 
tolic age,  says,  "  Christ  came  to  save  all  per- 


39 


sons  who  by  him  are  born  again  (baptized)  unto 
God,  infants  and  little  ones  and  children.'''' 
This  declaration  of  Irenseus  gives  full  proof 
that  infant  baptism  was  the  prevailing  practice 
of  the  church  in  his  time. 

c.  Tertullian  lived  about  one  hundred  years 
after  the  apostolic  age,  acknowledges  the  com- 
mon practice  of  infant  baptism  in  his  day,  but 
desired  that  it  might  be  delayed  not  only  to  in- 
fants, but  even  to  unmarried  persons,  in  conse- 
quence of  attributing  a  mysterious  sacredness 
to  baptism.  Though  when  a  child  was  about 
to  die,  he  declared  that  it  ought  to  be  baptized. 
If  it  be  right  to  have  a  child  that  is  about  to 
die  baptized,  why  not  then  with  the  same  pro- 
priety, baptize  those  that  are  icell? 

d.  Origen,  who  is  represented  as  the  most 
learned  man  of  his  time,  and  who  had  travelled 
extensively  in  various  countries,  was  born  about 
one  hundred  and  eighty-five  years  after  the 
apostolic  age.  His  testimony  on  infant  baptism 
is  clear  and  direct.  He  says,  "  According  to 
the  usage  of  tlie  church,  baptism  is  given  even 
to  infants."  Again  he  says,  "  The  church  re- 
ceived an  order  from  the  apostles,  to  give  bap- 
tism even  to  infants." 

e.  In  the  year  153,  after  th.e  apostolic  age,  a 
council  of  sixty-six  bisliops  were  assembled  at 
Carthage  on  a  question  proposed,  whether  bap- 
tism sliould  be  administered  to  children  the  se- 
cond day  after  their  birth,  or  w^hether,  as  m 
the  case  of  circumcision,  it  should  be  delayed 
till  they  were  eight  days  oM.     They  unani- 

'b2 


40 


mously  agreed  to  have  them  baptized  as  soon 
as  convenient.  Here  is  testimony  beyond  the 
possibility  of  any  doubt  in  the  bosom  of  every 
rational  man,  that  infant  baptism  was  then  uni- 
versally practised  in  the  churches. 

/.  I  pass  by  the  testimony  of  several  other 
eminent  men,  who  give  the  most  satisfactory 
accounts  of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  church  of  Christ.  But  I  will  come  down 
to  the  time  of  Augustine,  the  great  luminary  of 
the  age.  He  lived  about  two  hundred  and 
eighty-eight  years  after  the  apostles.  He  says 
in  the  most  express  language,  that  ^'  the  whole 
church,  practice  infant  baptism."  Again  he 
speaks  "  of  baptizing  infants  by  the  authority 
of  the  whole  church,"  which  was  undoubtedly 
delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles. 

Pelagius  lived  at  the  same  time  with  Augus- 
tine. He  was  a  heretic.  He  however,  bears 
ample  testimony  in  favor  of  infant  baptism. 
He  says  in  one  place,  "  Men  slander  me,  as  if 
I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants." 
Again  he  says,  "  I  never  heard  of  any,  not  even 
the  most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism 
to  infants." 

Many  more  writers  might  be  mentioned, 
who  in  the  most  unequivocal  language,  declare 
that  infant  baptism  was  practised  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles. 

g.  There  is  not  the  least  evidence,  that  in- 
fant baptism  has  ever  been  considered  an  inno- 
vation, or  was  ever  opposed  by  any  society  or 


41 

set  of  men,  until  the  year  1159,  when  a  small 
party  arose  among  the  Waldenses,  who  oppo- 
sed it.  They  believed  that  infants  were  inca- 
pable of  salvation.  They  however,  soon  gave 
up  either  their  opposition,  or  became  extinct. 
About  the  time  of  the  Reformation  by  Luther, 
in  Germany,  in  the  year  1522,  there  arose  a 
sect,  who  opposed  infant  baptism.  They  were 
called  Anabaptists.  And  although  they  spread 
in  several  kingdoms  of  Europe,  yet  within 
sixty  years  past,  thousands  of  them  have  given 
up  their  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  and  are 
uniting  with  Evangelical  churches. 

h.  According  to  the  history  of  the  English 
Baptists  by  Ivimey,  a  distinguished  writer  of 
that  denomination,  the  Particular  or  Calvinistic 
Baptist  denomination,  commenced  Sept.  12th, 
1633.  They  constitute  a  respectable  body  of 
christians,  both  as  to  piety,  talent  and  number 
of  members.  In  America,  they  have  the  se- 
cond largest  number  of  members  of  any  of  the 
christian  denominations.  They  oppose  infant 
baptism. 

Thus  then,  I  have  given  you  a  faithful  sketch 
of  the  history  of  infant  baptism  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles  to  the  present  period,  together 
with  a  specification  of  the  times,  when  oppo- 
sition to  it  was  made. 

i.  Before  however,  concluding  my  remarks 

on  the  historical  part  of  infant  baptism,  let 

another    subject    not    be    overlooked.      The 

church  of  the  Reformation,  commonly  called 

b3 


42 


the  Protestant  church,*  embraces  noiD  rising 
of  sixty  millions  of  members,  that  portion  who 
oppose  infant  baptism  number  about  one  mil- 
lion.f  Now  among  the  number  of  professors, 
who  constitute  the  remaining,  and  who  advo- 
cate infant  baptism,  are  men  of  the  most  ex- 
tensive learning ;  men  of  the  deepest  piety ; 
men  of  the  greatest  humility  ;  men  actuated  by 
the  purest  of  motives ;  men  whose  object  is  the 
glory  of  God,  and  the  extension  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom.  Now  is  it  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  men  of  such  character  and  of 
such  deep  piety ;  men  who  enjoy  all  the  op- 
portunities of  knowledge,  human  and  divine, 
would  advocate  infant  baptism  if  they  had  no 
scriptural  foundation  ?  And  what  adds  weight 
to  this  subject  is,  that  all  the  great  Reformers, 
commencing  with  Luther,  together  with  all  the 
most  learned  and  pious  men,  from  that  time  to 
the  present,  with  few  exceptions,  should  advo- 
cate and  practise  infant  baptism,  if  they  had 
no  scriptural  warrant  for  so  doing  !  I  appeal 
to  the  conscience  of  every  rational  being. 

j.  Again,  the  Greek  church  contains  about 
forty-five  millions  of  members.   To  that  church 

*Vi:5.  the  Lutheran  church — the  Episcopal — Presbyterian, 
Baptist,  &c. 

fThe  Baptists  according  to  their  own  published  docu- 
ments number  in  the  United  States  about  700,000  mem- 
bers. In  the  United  Kingdoms  of  Great  Britain  210,000. 
Besides  these,  they  have  some  in  other  parts  of  Europe  and 
the  Canadas.  Among'  thoir  foreign  missionary  stations 
4,000.  All  united  will  not  exceed  1,000,000  of  members 
throughout  t^he  christian  world. 


43 


the  opponents  of  infant  baptism  appeal,  sup- 
posing that  it  possesseth  the  most  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  Greek  language,  particular- 
ly in  reference  to  the  definition  of  the  word 
baptizo,  translated  baptize.  That  church  ad- 
vocates and  practices  infant  baptism. 

k.  Again,  the  Roman  Catholic  church  has 
from  her  very  origin,  advocated  and  practised 
infant  baptism,  and  still  does,  though  she  is 
corrupt  in  many  of  her  other  doctrines.  That 
church  contains  about  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
five  millions  of  members. 

I.  Admitting  that  the  two  latter  may  be 
called  christian,  let  us  sum  up  all  these  together. 
The  Protestant  church  contains  about  sixty 
millions.  The  Greek  church  about  forty-five 
millions,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  church  about 
one  hundred  and  fifty-five  millions;  the  total 
amount  is  about  two  hundred  and  sixty  millions. 
Out  of  this  great  number,  only  about  one  mil- 
lion oppose  infant  baptism  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
there  is  one  opposer  to  infant  baptism  to  two 
hundred  and  fifty-nine  who  advocate  and  prac- 
tise it,  in  the  christian  church  throughout  the 
world.  Truly,  the  contrast  is  very  great,  and 
the  result  strongly- confirms  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fant baptism. 

In  view  of  this  subject,  who  will  refuse  the 
dedication  of  children  to  God,  in  baptism? 
Who  will  withhold  from  them  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  promise,  which  God  has  ordained 
for  their  spiritual  good  }  What  christian  par- 
ent's heart  will  not  be  raised  in  thanksdvino:  to 
b4 


44 


Almighty  God  for  his  favors  manifested  to  .him 
and  his  child  ?  Let  him  dedicate  that  child  to 
God  in  baptism — let  him  bear  in  mind  that 
they  both  belong  to  Christ  the  great  covenant- 
ed head  of  the  church — let  him  discharge  his 
duty  to  him,  looking  forward  to  the  time  when 
they  shall  meet  around  the  throne  of  God  and 
be  re-united  forever  in  heaven ! 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Matthew  xxviii.   19. 

"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

Christian  baptism  is  not  a  saving  ordinance. 
It  is  the  symbol  of  regeneration.  It  is  per- 
formed by  the  use  of  water.  Water  lias  been 
wisely  selected  by  the  Saviour,  in  consequence 
of  its  abundance  everywhere,  and  its  adapta- 
tion to  express  the  signification  of  this  ordi 
nance. 

But  the  question  arises,  in  what  mode  is  the 
Waaler  to  be  used  in  order  to  constitute  it  scrip- 
tural baptism  ?  There  is  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion on  this  subject.  Our  respected  Baptist 
Brethren  manitain  that  immersion  alone  consti- 
tutes true  baptism.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
great  body  of  professing  christians,  though  di- 
vided into  different  denominations,  yet  they  do 
consider  it  immaterial,  how  the  water  is  used 
whether  the  subject  is  immersed  into  the  water, 
or  the  water  applied  in  some  other  w^ay,  such 
as  pouring  or  sprinkling.  They  maintain  with 
Luther,  that  "it  is  not  the  water  that  produces 
the  effects,  but  the  word  of  God,  which  is  con- 
nected with  the  water,  for  without  th^  word 
of  God,  the  w'ater  is  mere  water,  and  does  not 
constitute  a  baptism;  but  with  the  w^ord,  it 
b5 


46 


becomes  a  baptism,  that  is  to  say,  a  graceful 
water  of  life,  and  the  laver  of  regeneration  in 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Thus  you  perceive  that  the 
question  is  not  whether  baptism  by  immersion 
is  valid  baptism  ;  this  is  admitted  by  all,  but  it 
is  whether  immersion  alone  constitutes  chris- 
tian baptism  ?  The  great  body  of  the  christian 
church  maintain  that  it  is  not  essential  in  what 
mode  water  is  used,  whether  by  immersion  or 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

In  the  further  consideration  of  this  subject, 
let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  which  is  employed  to  express  this  sac- 
ramental rite.  It  is  a  Greek  word,  baptizo, 
which  is  derived  from  bapto.  The  common 
definition  of  which  is  to  immerse^  to  imsh^  to 
sprinkle^  to  pour  on  icater  and  to  color  as  loitrli 
a  liquid.  Satisfactory  evidences  of  these  de- 
fiinitions  can  be  given  in  classical  authors  to 
every  unbiased  mind  on  this  subject.  And 
when  we  pass  from  classical  authors  to  the  sa- 
cred scriptures,  we  come  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion. Says  Carson,  one  of  the  best  scholars 
in  the  Baptist  church,  "  1  have  all  the  lexi- 
cographers and  commentators  against  me  in 
that  opinion,"  viz.  that  baptizo  signifies  to  im- 
merse only.  This  is  a  declaration  not  unwor- 
thy of  your  notice.  Here,  you  perceive,  is 
one  man's  opinion  placed  in  opposition  to  a 
host  of  men,  whose  qualifications,  certainly, 
are  as  good  as  his,  and  who  too,  possessing 
this  advantage,  that  they  have   no  sectarian 


47 

principles  at  st^ke,  have  given  us  their  candid 
opinion  to  the  above  definitions.  Says  Dr. 
Miller,  of  Princeton,  one  of  the  best  scholars 
and  divines  of  the  present  age :  "  I  can  assure 
you,  that  the  word  which  we  render  bap- 
tizo,  does  legitimately  signify  the  application 
of  water  in  any  way  as  well  as  by  immer- 
sion." "  Nay,"  he  continues,  "  I  can  assure 
you,  if  the  most  mature  and  competent  Greek 
scholars  that  ever  lived,  may  be  allowed  to 
decide  in  this  case,  that  many  examples  of 
the  use  of  this  word  occur  in  scripture,  in 
which  it  not  only  mc/y,  but  manifestly  must  sig- 
nify sprinkling,  perfusion,  or  washing  in  any 
way." 

Luther,  in'his  translation  of  the  Bible,  gives 
-it  the  same  definition.  It  is  therein  translated 
tauffen.  If  he.  designed  to  have  given  the  word 
baptizo  the  definition,  to  immerse  only,  he 
would  not  have  employed  the  word  tauffen  but 
eintauchen.  Abundant  proof  of  the  above  de- 
finition can  be  given  from  his  own  works. 

Here  I  would  make  the  remark  that  our 
Baptist  Brethren  not  only  do  great  injustice, 
but  they  even  manifest  a  want  of  candor,  when 
they  quote  the  writings  of  men  differing  from 
them  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo. 
They  say  for  example  that  Luther,  Stuart  and 
other  distinguished  men  acknowledge  that 
that  word  signifies  to  immerse,  but  no  one  of 
them  gives  this  as  the  only  definition,  but  they 
give    other   definitions,   besides   they   invari- 


46 

ably,  when  they  do  baptize,  use  water  in  other 
modes.* 

Again,  our  Baptist  Brethren  place  great  con- 
fidence in  the  Greek  church  as  being  the  best 
qualified  to  define  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo.  But  on  an  examination  of  their  dic- 
tionaries in  their  own  native  language,  it  has 
been  found,  especially  in  that  one  by  Gases, 
which  is  in  common  use  by  the  Greeks,  that 
the  following  definitions  of  baptizo  are  given, 
"  to  loety  moisten,  bedew ;  to  wash,  to  bathe,  to 
draw,  to  pump  waters  The  definition  to  im- 
merse is  not  given  at  all,  except  it  be  by  infer- 
ence. But  notwithstanding  this,  the  Greek 
church  baptize  by  immersion,  extraordinary 
cases  excepted.  Children  and  persons  in  de- 
licate health  are  baptized  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling. Passing  by  other  authorities,  let  me  only 
mention  the  name  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kurtz,  the 
able  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Observer,  who, 
several  years  ago,  travelling  in  Europe,  says: 

*To  give  a  specimen  how  our  Baptist  brethren  oftentimes 
misrepresent  the  views  of  Pajdobaptist  writers,  we  will  se- 
lect their  manner  of  quoting-  Prof  Stuart  They  represent 
him  as  saying,  that  the  Greek  words  "bnpto  and  baptizo 
mean  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse  into  any  thing  liquid.  Ml 
lexicographers  are  agreed  in  f/ita."  Tluis  far  they  quote  him. 
But  let  it  be  remembered  he  does  not  say  that  these  aie  the 
only  meanings  of  these  Greek  words.  No.  He  proceeds 
to  siiow  that  they  and  especially  baptizo  means  also  "  f o 
icash — to  bedeio  or  moisten;  which,  he  says,  are  more  clear- 
ly and  fully  exhibited."  Our  Baptist  brethren  quote  just 
so  much  from  him  as  suits  their  case,  and  then  publish  to 
the  world  that  Prof  Stuart  coincides  with  them  in  the 
meaning  of  those  Greek  words.  Is  not  this  exceedingly 
unjust  and  u^icancid?"? 


49 

"  We  ourselves  once  witnessed  the  baptism  of 
an  infant  in  the  great  cathedral  of  St.  Peters- 
burg by  pouring.^''  Such  is  the  history  which 
we  have  of  this  cliureh  as  it  respects  the  de- 
finition of  the  word  baptizo  and  their  practice 
of  the  mode  of  baptism. 

Without  entering  farther  into  detail  in  rela- 
tion to  the  meaning  of  that  word,  as  it  is  un- 
derstood by  the  christian  church  in  general,  1 
hasten  to  an  examination  of  some  of  those  pas- 
sages in  the  sacred  scriptures,  where  this  word 
occurs,  which  will  fully  illustrate  and  confirm 
the  position  laid  down  that  it  has  other  mean- 
ings than  immersion. 

In  the  classic  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament, 
we  have  several  striking  instances. 

a.  In  Ecclesiasticus,  34th  chap.  25th  verse, 
the  son  of  Sirach,  speaking  of  one  who  had 
been  purified  from  the  pollution  of  a  dead  body 
says :  "  he  was  baptized  from  the  pollution  of 
the  dead."  The  question  arises  how  was  an 
individual  purified  from  the  pollution  of  the 
dead.?  In  the  book  of  Numbers,  the  IQth 
chap.  13th  verse,  we  read  as  follows :  '^  Who- 
soever toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  that 
is  dead,  and  purifieth  not  himself,  defileth  the 
tabernacle  of  the  Lord ;  and  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  Israel :  because  the  water  of  sep- 
aration was  not  sprinkled  (baptized)  upon  him^ 
he  shall  be  unclean;  his  uncleanness  is  yet  upon 
him."  Here,  you  perceive,  this  baptism  was 
expressly  performed  by  sprinkling  water  upon 
him.  Evidently,  here,  baptizo  cannot  mean  to 
immerse,  but  to  sprinkle. 


60 

h.  In  Leviticus,  14th  chapter,  6th  verse,  we 
have  the  following  language  :  ''  As  for  the  liv- 
ing bird,  he  (the  priest)  shall  take  it,  and  the 
cedar- wood  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop, 
and  shall  rfip  (baptize)  them  and  the  living  bird 
in  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the  running 
water."  Now  I  appeal  to  the  conscience  of 
any  man,  is  it  possible  that  the  cedar-wood, 
the  scarlet,  the  hyssop  and  the  living  bird 
could  all  be  immersed  in  the  blood  of  a  single 
bird  ?  There  would  only  be  blood  sufficient 
to  stain  them,  or  in  common  language,  to  ren- 
der them  bloody.  Here  then  the  word  baptize 
cannot  mean  to  immerse,  but  only  to  stain  or 
colour. 

c.  In  the  book  of  Dan,  4th  chap.  33rd  verse, 
we  have  a  description  of  the  insane  king  of 
Babylon  given,  that  he  was  baptized  with  tlie 
dew  of  heaven,  in  the  following  language: 
"  And  his  body  was  loet  (baptized)  with  the 
dew  of  heaven."  Here  there  can  be  no  im- 
mersion. Immersion  signifies  the  sinking  of  a 
body  in  w^ater,  but  here  you  perceive  that  the 
dew  of  heaven  fell  upon  him.  The  word 
baptizo  here  evidently  then  cannot  mean  to  im- 
merse, but  to  hedeic  or  sprinkle. 

Many  more  instances  from  the  Greek  of  the 
Old  Testament  might  be  quoted  to  confirm  my 
position,  but  I  pass  on  to  the  New  Testament. 
And  here  let  it  be  impressed  on  the  mind,  there 
is  not  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible,  that  de- 
clares in  so  many  words,  that  a  person  was 

EVER  BAPTIZED  IN  WATER,  BUT  WITH  WATER. 


51 

In  Matthew,  3rd  chapter,  16th  verse,  it  is  said 
that  John  "  baptized  with  watery  In  John,  1st 
chap.  31st  verse,  it  is  expressed  :  ••'  Therefore 
am  I  come  baptizing  with  waters  In  Acts  1st 
chap.  5th  verse,  it  is  said :  "  For  John  truly 
baptized  with  water ^  but  ye  shall  be  hapized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence." 
Here  evidently  the  water  was  applied  to  the 
person,  and  not  the  person  to  the  water.  To 
evade  this,  however,  it  is  contended  by  our 
Baptist  Brethren  that  the  particle  with  should 
be  rendered  into.  Admitting  for  a  moment  that 
construction,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
iiito  is  not  under.  Immersion  does  not  simply 
signify  into  water,  but  particularly  under  water. 
Again  the  impropriety  of  rendering  with  even 
into  is  evident,  when  we  take  the  latter  part 
of  the  sentence  in  connection  with  the  former. 
In  that  case  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  be  performed  by  the  person  sinking  into 
it,  but  this  is  contrary  not  only  to  good  sense, 
but  even  to  the  common  language  of  scripture. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  every  where  represented 
as  coming  from  above — as  being  poured  upon. 
In  Luke,  24th  chapter,  49th  verse,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  described ;  sent  doxcn.  Acts,  2nd  chap. 
33rd  verse,  shed  forth.  Acts,  2nd  chapter,  2nd 
verse,  came.  Acts,  8th  chap.  16th  verse,  fallen. 
Acts,  15th  chap.  8th  verse,  giving.  Acts,  10th 
chap.  44th  verse,  fell.  John,  1st  chap.  32nd 
verse,  descending.  All  these  passages  clearly 
show  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
an  application  of  it  to  the  person  thus  baptized. 


52  i 

Again,  there  is  another  important  idea  con- 
tained in  the  above  passage  (AetSy  1st  chapter, 
5th  verse,)  which  is  tliat  the  baptism  of*  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  analogotis  to-  the  baptism  of 
water.  The  apostle  Peter,  in  Acts,  1 1th  chap, 
15th  and  I6th  verses,  in  vindication  of  his  own 
cause  says :  "As  I  began  to  speak  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them  (epipjpto,  to  fall  upon)  as 
on  us  at  the  heginning.  Then  remembered  I 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John 
indeed  baptized  you  with  water,  hit  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghosf^  not  many  days 
hence^"  Here  evidently  is  not  only  an  allusion 
to  but  a  fulfilment  of  the  promi^se  of  Jo-hn.  in 
the  above  chapter  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  direct  conclusion  to  which  we 
come  is,  that  since  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  effected  not  by  immersion,  but  by 
pouring^  the  baptism  of  water  by  John  was  like- 
wise effected  not  by  immei^ion,  but  by  pminng 
or  sprinkling.     Who  will  contradict  this? 

(I  In  the  1st  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corin- 
thians, 10th  chap.  1st  and  2nd  verses,  we  have 
a  description  given  of  the  Israelites,  who  were 
baptized  in  the  cloud,  in  the  following  lan- 
guage, "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that 
ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers 
were  under  the  cloud  and  all  passed  through 
the  sea :  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  question  arises 
how  was  this  baptism  performed  ?  Certainly 
not  by  immersion,  for  we  are  expressly  told  by 
Moses  in  Ex.  14th  chap.  22nd  verse,  that  the 


53 


children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the 
sea  upon  the  dt^y  ground.  From  this  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  in  whatever  manner  water  was  used 
for  their  baptism,  it  could  not  have  been  by 
immersion.  Does  it  not  appear  more  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  if  water  touched  them,  at 
all,  it  must  have  been  either  hy  the  spray  of 
the  sea,  which  the  east  wind,  spoken  of  by 
Moses,  must  have  dashed  over  them  ?  or  it 
might  have  been  performed  by  the  descent  of 
the  rain  from  the  clouds  which  passed  over 
them  at  the  time.  For  if  they  were  under  the 
cloud,  then  the  cloud  was  over  them,  and  if 
they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud,  then  they 
must  have  received  some  of  its  contents  upon 
them.  The  Psalmist  evidently  alludes  to  this 
in  the  9th  verse  of  the  6Stii  Psalm :  *••'  Thou, 
O  God,  didst  send  a  'plentiful  rain^^^  &c. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  language  of  the  apos- 
tle is  figurative,  and  thereby  implies,  that  be- 
cause water  was  on  both  sides  of  the  Israelites 
they  were  immersed.  There  is  as  much  of  a 
figure  in  the  language  of  the  apostle,  as  if  an 
individual  were  to  pass  between  two  hogsheads 
filled  with  water,  and  then  say  he  is  immersed. 
But  permit  me  to  remark,  that  in  this  eventful 
period  there  was  an  immersion,  the  first  in- 
stance recorded  in  the  Bible — an  immersion 
not  figurative,  but  real,  genuine.  Moses  says  in 
Ex.  15th  chap.  10th  verse,  "  The  sea  covered 
them  (the  Egyptians:)  they  sank  like  lead  in  the 
mighty  waters."     Or  as  the  poet  expresses  it: 

"The  Lord  hath  but  spoken 
And  chariot  and  horsemen  are  sunk  in  the  wave." 


54 


e.  In  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews, 
9th  chapter,  10th  verse,  we  have^^the  following 
language :  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  washings,"  (diaphorois  bap- 
tismois)  literally  translated  different  baptisms. 
Now  if  we  refer  to  the  Old  Testament  where 
these  different  baptisms,  or  as  it  is  rendered, 
divers  washings  are  described,  we  evidently 
see  that  they  were  performed  not  by  immer- 
sion, but  by  sprinkling  and  pouring.  Moses 
says,  in  Num.  19th  chap.  18th  verse:  "  And  a 
clean  person  shall  take  a  hyssop  and  dip  it  in 
water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent  and  upon 
the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were 
there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a  bone,  or 
one  slain  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave,"  &c.  Simi- 
lar language  you  will  tind  in  Lev.  14th  chap. 
7th  verse ;  Num.  8th  chapter,  7th  verse.  All 
which  specify  that  these  washings,  or  baptisms, 
were  performed  by  sprinkling  and  pouring. 
No  mention  is  made  at  all  of  immersing  under 
water. 

/.  In  Mark,  7th  chap.  3rd  verse,  the  word 
baptizo  cannot  mean  to  immerse,  but  must  ne- 
cessarily mean,  to  wash ;  the  following  is  the 
language  of  scripture.  "  And  when  they  come 
from  market,  except  they  wash  (baptize)  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be, 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  wash- 
ing (baptisms)  of  cups  and  pots  and  brazen 
vessels  and  tables."  As  it  respects  cups  and 
pots  and  brazen  vessels,  they  might  easily  be 
immersed  in  water,  but  to  suppose  that  tables 


55 


or  couches  would  be  taken  out  of  the  house, 
carried  to  some  river,  creek,  pond  or  pool  and 
be  immersed  under  water,  appears  too  unrea- 
sonable and  inconsistent.  But  it  appears  rea- 
sonable and  consistent  to  apply  water  to  them 
either  by  pouring,  sprinkling  or  washing.  In 
intimate  connection  with  this  example  is  the  in- 
stance of  our  Saviour,  as  recorded  in  Luke 
11th  chap.  3Tth  and  38th  verses,  who  had  re- 
ceived an  invitation  from  .a  Pharisee  to  dine 
with  iiim,  who  when  he  sat  at  meat,  marvelled 
because  the  Saviour  "had  not  first  washed 
(baptized)  before  dinner."  The'  wonder  on 
the  part  of  the  Pharisee  was  evidently  because 
our  Lord  had  not  first  washed  his  hands  before 
dinner.  To  say,  that  he  (Christ)  had  not  first 
immersed  before  dinner  would  have  been  con- 
trary to  the  custom  of  the  Pharisees,  for  we 
are  expressly  told  that,  "  the  Pharisees  and  all 
the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft  (or 
with  the  fist)  eat  not."  In  a  word,  to  iMxMerse 
AND  immehsion  are  expressions  which  do 

NOT  occur,  at  all,  IN  THE  BiBLE. 

From  these  considerations,  we  pass  on  to 
examine  some  of  the  examples  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  the  rite  of  baptism 
was  actually  performed.  As  it  respects  the 
baptism  performed  by  John,  we  have  the 
clearest  evidence  that  it  was  not  christian  bap- 
tism. 

a.  It  was  called  by  the  apostle  Paul,  Jb/inV 
baptism^  Acts,  19th  chap.  5th  verse,  in  contra- 
distinction to  christian  baptism,     b.  It  was  the 


56 


introduction  of  Christ  in  his  official  character, 
as  he  says  himself,  John,  1st  chap.  31st  verse, 
''  I  knew  him  not,  but  that  he  should  he  made 
manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  I  am  come  baptizing 
with  water?''  c.  It  was  not  instituted  by  Christ. 
d.  He  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  ths 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
Our  text  expressly  declares  that  christian  bap- 
tism had  to  be  thus  perfoj-med.  e.  We  are  ex- 
pressly told  in  the  Acts  the  19th  chapter,  5th 
verse,  that  those  of  John's  baptism,  who  be- 
lieved in  Christ  were  baptized  again ;  "when 
they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  CJtristy  Now  if  John's 
baptism  had  been  a  christian  baptism,  why 
wei^e  they  baptized  again?  What  evidence 
can  be  clearer  than  this,  that  his  baptism  was 
not  ehi'istian  baptism.  /.  The  multitude  which 
he  baptized  did  not  follow  Christ.  Could  they 
have  received  a  christian  baptism.?  could  they 
have  been  brought  into  his  church  by  the  very 
rite  appointed  for  that  object  and  yet  reject 
him  and  even  join  in  the  general  shout  at  his 
trial,  "  crucify  him,  crucify  him .'"'  Does 
christian  baptism  exert  no  happier  influence 
on  the  minds  of  adults  than  that  which  they 
manifested  to\vards  Christ.?  Will  not  every 
rational  man  say,  the  baptism  with  which  they 
were  baptized,  was  not  christian  baptism  ? 
g.  No,  brethren,  christian  baptism  was  not  es- 
tablished until  within  three  years  after  that 
time ;  whan  it  w^as  established  by  Christ  him- 
self: when  he  uttered  the  words  of  the  text. 


57 

"  Go  ye  and  make  disciples  of  all  baptizing^'' 
&c.  Then  and  not  till  then  was  this  ordinance 
established,  which  was  hereafter  to  be  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  of  admission  into  his  church  upon 
earth.  This  is  the  general  view  of  this  subject 
by  the  ablest  of  divines.  Among  which  num- 
ber is  the  late  Robert  Hall,  an  eminent  clergy- 
man of  the  Baptist  church  in  England. 

Admitting,  therefore,  that  John's  baptism 
was  not  a  christian  baptism,  then  his  baptism 
affords  no  true  criterion  to  decide  the  precise 
mode  of  baptism.  But  notwithstanding  this, 
our  Baptist  Brethren  place  great  reliance  upon 
his  baptism.  We  will  select  that  interesting 
instance,  wiien  our  Saviour  was  baptized  by 
him,  and  see  whether  it  favors  immersion. 

Before  entering  upon  an  examination  of  the 
mode  of  Christ's  baptism,  let  it  be  remarked, 
that  if  our  Saviour  had  been  inducted  into  the 
Priestly  office  by  immersion,  then  his  induction 
into  that  office  would  have  been  contrary  to 
God's  own  appointed  way.  We  have  in  Ex. 
29th  chap.  21st  verse,  the  following  explicit 
language  :  "  And  thou  shalt  take  of  the  blood 
that  is  upon  the  altar,  and  of  the  anointing  oil, 
and  sprinkle  it  upon  Aaron,"  &c.  Aaron  was 
the  first  High  Priest.  He  was  an  eminent  type 
of  Christ.  Now  in  accordance  with  the  above 
manner  of  induction  into  the  Priestly  office, 
established  by  God  himself  and  continued  by 
Him  during  the  old  dispensation,  you  evidently 
perceive  that  Christ's  induction  could  not  con- 
sistently have  been  performed  by  immersion, 


but  by  sprinkling.  And  if  God  permitted 
John  to  induct  Christ  into  his  Priestly  office 
by  immersion^  then  it  implies  that  the  mode  of 
induction,  by  Him,  was  not  regarded  essential, 
but  immaterial.  And  if  God  recorded  the 
mode  of  Christ's  baptism  immaterial,  then  by 
parity  of  reasoning.  He  will  not  regard  the 
mode  of  our  baptism  essential,  but  likewise 
immaterial. 

We  are  told  in  Matthew,  3rd  chapter,  16ih 
verse,  that  "  Jesus  when  he  was  baptized,  went 
up  straitway  out  of  the  water."  Although  at 
first  view,  it  appears  this  passage  asserts  that 
Jesus  had  been  actually  in  the  Jordan,  but  how- 
ever there  is  no  evidence  that  he  either  went 
under  the  water  or  that  he  came  up  out  of  the- 
water.  Immersion  means  going  under  the 
water,  but  this  passage  does  not  say  so.  With- 
out doing  violence  to  language,  it  can  be  ren- 
dered,* he  went  up  straitway  away  from  the 
icater.  The  little  word  that  is  rendered  mit  of 
is  rendered  in  other  places  from,  five  times 
oftener  than  out  of.  And  the  word  that  is  ren- 
dered in  or  into  is  frequently  rendered  at.,  to. 
This  every  Greek  scholar  acknowledges.  In- 
stead of  saying  therefore,  in  the  Jordan,  it  can 
be  rendered  at  or  to  the  Jordan.  There  is  an 
instance  recorded  in  2nd  Kings,  6th  chap.  4th 
verse,  where  this  expression  occurs,  speaking 
of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  they  "  came  to  the 
Jordan  to  cut  icood.^''  It  would  be  inconsistent 
to  say,  that  they  went  into  the  Jordan  to  cut 
wood.        ^ 

♦Robinson. 


69 


From  these  considerations  it  appears  evident 
that  Christ  was  not  immersed  by  John,  but  that 
water  was  sprinkled  upon  him  in  accordance 
with  God's  own  appointed  way  of  the  dedica- 
tion of  High  Priests  to  that  sacred  office. 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  in  the  case 
of  the  Eunich,  Acts,  8th  chap.  38th  and  39th 
verses.  ••'  They  went  down  (the  Eunich  and 
Philip,)  both  into  the  water,  and  he  baptized 
him."  The  little  word,  into,  can,  agreeably  to 
the  above,  be  rendered,  to,  and  then  it  would 
read,  "  They  went  down  both  to  the  water," 
&c.  Here  then,  you  perceive,  that  these  little 
words  do  not  certainly  prove  anything  more 
than  that  they  went  to  the  water,  and  when  they 
were  come  from  the  water.  But  even  if  it 
were  certain  that  they  went  into  the  water,  this 
would  not  determine  the  mode  in  which  the 
water  was  used.  If  it  be  insisted  upon,  that 
the  Eunich  was  actually  immersed,  then  it 
proves  too  much.  For  nothing  is  said  of  the 
Eunich,  that  is  not  said  of  Philip.  "  They 
went  down  both  into  the  water,  and  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water."  If  the  Eunich 
was  actually  immersed,  then  Philip  was  in  like 
manner  immersed.  And  if  Philip  was  not  im- 
mersed, then  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Eu- 
nich vras  actually  immersed.  On  the  principle 
of  coYrect  reasoning,  this  cannot  be  contra- 
dicted]. In  a  word,  they  might  have  gone  to 
the  water  edge,  and  there  Philip  baptized 
him,  either  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on 
him. 


60 


There  are  other  circumstances,  which  must 
be  taken  into  account,  which  do  not  favor  im- 
mersion. As  it  respects  the  baptism  of  John, 
it  is  said  by  the  Evangelist  Matthew,  3d  chap. 
5th  and  6th  verses,  *'  There  went  out  to  him 
Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea  and  the  regions  round 
about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in 
Jordan,*  confessing  their  sins."  Upon  good 
authority,  it  has  been  estimated,  that  in  the 
days  of  David,  the  population  of  Palestine 
could  not  have  been  less  than  six  millions  and 
seven  hundred  thousand,  and  in  the  time  of 
John,  it  amounted  to  about  six  millions,  and  of 
these,  one  would  suppose,  judging  from  the 
language  of  Matthew,  at  least  three  millions 
must  have  been  baptized  by  John. 

Again,  John  the  Baptist  was  six  months  older 
than  Jesus  Christ.  He  then  must  have  entered 
upon  his  ministry  about  six  months  earlier  than 
Christ  did  upon  his.  John  continued  but  a  few 
months  after  he  had  baptized  Christ ;  conse- 
quently, his  ministry  must  have  been  a  year  or 
less  than  a  year.  Now  the  question  arises, 
how  could  John  baptize  such  an  immense  mul- 
titude in  such  a  short  space  of  time  by  immer- 
sion }  Admit  for  a  moment,  that  he  did  bap- 
tize nine  months — that  his  bodily  strength 
would  allow  him  to  be  in  the  water  twelve 

*If  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  &c.,  went  out  to  be  baptized 
of  Jolin,then  children  jn  like  manner  were  baptized.  Chil- 
dren constitute  a  great  portion  of  every  community,  and 
they  must  evidently  be  included  in  the  number,  since  the 
exproFsion  all  is  used  by  the  sacred  penman  in  his  jiar- 
rutivc. 


61 

hours  each  day,  both  in  summer  and  in  winter, 
then  he  would  have  baptized  rising  of  eleven 
thousand  a  day,  rising  of  nine  hundred  an  hour, 
and  about  fifteen  each  minute.  Now  is  it  pos- 
sible that  he  could  have  baptized  all  these  by 
immersion  ?  Let  reason  and  candor  decide  this 
matter.  But  he  could  easily  have  baptized 
them  either  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

Again,  look  at  the  case  of  the  Eunich.  He 
was  returning  from  Jerusalem.  He,  riding  in 
his  chariot,  was  engaged  in  reading  in  the  pro- 
phecy of  Isaiah,  wheie  a  description  is  given 
of  the  humiliation  of  Christ.  In  which  portion 
of  scripture,  this  passage  occurs,  "  iSo  shall 
he  (Christ,)  sprinkle  many  nations.''''  The 
prophet  had  been  speaking  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  in  the  world,  and  here  declares  how  dif- 
ferent nations  of  which  he  was  one  should  be 
introduced  into  that  kingdom.  He  here  says 
tliat  it  shall  be  done  by  sprinkling,  as  the  initi- 
atory rite.  And  if  it  was  to  be  done  by  sprink- 
ling, then  certainly  the  Eunich  would  not  have 
been  willing  to  be  immersed  since  it  was  not 
only  contrary  to  the  prophet's  declaration,  but 
contrary  also  to  Christ's  mode  as  stated  above. 
This  promise  had  its  accomplishment,  when 
Christ  sent  his  apostles  to  make  disciples  of 
all  nations,  by  baptizing,  &c.  Now  from  the 
circumstance  that  the  Eunich  had  been  reading 
of  sprinkling,  as  being  the  initiatory  rite  for 
the  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  it 
appears  evident  that  Philip  must  have  sprinkled 
him. 


The  instance  recorded  in  John,  3rd  chapter, 
23rd  verse,  that  John  baptized  in  Aenon  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there,  does  not 
determine  the  manner  of  his  baptism,  because 
we  read  that  he  baptized  also  at  Bethabara  and 
in  the  wilderness  where  there  is  no  express 
mention  made  that  there  was  any  water ;  al- 
though there  was  no  doubt  sufficient  for  the 
ordinary  purposes  of  life.  And  if  John's  par- 
ticular object  in  going  to  Aenon  carries  the 
idea  that  he  went  there  expressly  to  immerse 
his  subjects  under  water,  then  it  appears  evi- 
dent that  his  former  mode  of  baptizing  had  not 
been  by  immersion,  but  performed  in  some 
other  way,  because  there  was  not  a  sufficient 
quantity  of  water  for  that  purpose  at  the  for- 
mer place.  And  if  he  actually  did  immerse 
his  subjects  under  water  at  Aenon,  but  did  bap- 
tize them  at  the  other  places  in  some  other 
manner,  then  the  conclusion  is  that  the  use  of 
water  in  the  administration  of  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism in  the  view  of  John  himself  was  immate- 
rial. And  if  immaterial,  then  consequently, 
there  is  nothing  favorable  to  immersion  alone 
as  constituting  christian  baptism. 

Again,  I  would  ask  why  did  the  women, 
spoken  of  in  Acts,  16th  chap.  13t.h  verse,  go 
to  '''the  river-side^  where  prayer  was  wont  to 
be  made .?"  It  evidently  could  not  have  been 
for  the  object  of  baptizing.  No,  for  that  sacred 
right  had  not  been  known  among  them  until  the 
apostle  canxe  there  and  preached.  That  place 
was  selected  for  its  pleasant  location,  its  beau- 


63 


tiful  scenery  and  convenience.  So  John  must 
have  selected  Aenon — a  place  of  convenience, 
having  an  abundance  of  water  for  the  accom- 
modation of  the  multitude  that  came  to  his 
baptism.  No  inference  whatever  can  there- 
fore be  drawn  from  this  circumstance  in  favor 
of  immersion. 

Finally,  in  relation  to  the  baptism  performed 
by  John,  he  says  himself  in  Matt.  3rd  chapter, 
11th  verse,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water 
unto  repentance,  but  he  that  cometh  after  me 
is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  wor- 
thy to  bear ;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire^  Now  if  the  word  bap- 
tizo  always  means  to  immerse,  does-  it,  accord- 
ina:  to  good  sense,  appear  proper  to  say,  im- 
mersed in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  immersed  in  fire  ? 
Is  not  the  Holy  Ghost  invariably  represented 
as  coming  from  above,  as  being  poured  out  ? 
Now  if  the  word  baptizo  always  means  to  im- 
merse^ then  this  prediction  of  John  has  not  yet 
been  fulfilled.  But  we  have  every  reason  to 
believe  that  it  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, Acts,  2nd  chapter,  when  "  there  came  a 
sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind, 
and  it  (the  sound)  filled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto 
them,  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat 
upon  each  of  them,  and  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c.  This  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  in  accordance  with  the 
promise  of  God  made  to  the  prophet  Joel, 
2nd  chap.  28th  and  29th  verses.     The  apostle 


64 

Peter,  in  explaining  to  the  Jews  the  above  ex- 
traordinary event,  says  in  the  16th  and  17th 
verses :  "  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet  Joel,  and  it  shall  come  to  pass 
in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  1  uill  pour  out 
(ekcheo,  to  pour  forth)  my  spirit  upon  all 
Jie-sh,^''  &c.  Here  then  you  have  another  evi- 
dence that  this  baptisni  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  not  effected  by  immersion,  but  by  being 
poured  out  upon  the  subjects  thus  baptized. 
Now  taking  this  instance  in  connection  with 
the  one  in  Acts,  1st  chap.  5th  verse,  explained 
on  page  52,  you  evidently  see  that  the  mode 
of  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not 
effected  by  immersion,  but  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  and  if  it  was  thus  performed,  then 
we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  baptism  loith 
water  was  in  a  similar  manner  performed. 

The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  converts 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Acts,  2nd  chapter, 
was  performed  at  Jerusalem,  where  there  was 
no  river  or  creek — when  it  was  summer,  and 
the  rains  were  scarce,  the  brook  Kedron  was 
dry,  and  no  water  was  near  except  the  pool  of 
Siloam.  Where  could  the  apostles  have  found 
water  in  sufficient  quantity  to  immerse  the  three 
thousand  ?  We  do  not  read  that  they  went  in 
search  of  water.  Besides,  when  we  consider 
all  the  circumstances  in  respect  to  the  time  re- 
quired in  preaching,  in  examining  the  converts, 
in  preparing  dresses;  and  then  consider  that 
each  apostle  had  but  a  few  hours  left  to  im- 
merse two  hundred  and  fifty;  is  it  not  more 


65 


reasonable  to  believe  tbat  they  were  baptized 
by  sprinkling,  in  accordance  to  the  Jewish  cus- 
tom, which  could  have  been  done  in  a  short 
time  ? 

Again,  does  not  this  appear  to  have  been  the 
manner,  when  we  look  at  the  prophecy  in 
Isaiah,  5th  chap.  2d  verse,  where  it  is  de<^lared 
that,  "  he  (Christy)  shall  sprinkle  many  nations^ 
Now  if  we  look  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  which 
occurred  a  few  days  after  Christ's  ascension, 
many  nations  were  present  to  hear  the  apostles. 
Not  less  than  nineteen  or  twenty  different  na- 
tions were  there  present  by  representation,  and 
three  thousand  of  these  representatives  were 
at  once  introduced  into  the  christian  church. 
Here  then,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a  commencement  of  the  ful- 
filment of  that  prophecy.  And  you  perceive 
that  their  introduction  into  the  church,  was  not 
by  im.mersion,  but  by  sprinkling. 

Again,  while  speaking  of  the  prophecies,  we 
have  a  description  in  Ezek.  36th  chap.  25th 
verse,  of  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  their  se- 
paration ffom  among  the  heathen,  and  their  re- 
turn again  to  their  own  land.  The  question 
arises,  how  will  this  be  effected }  In  what 
manner  will  the  initiatory  rite  of  baptism  he  ad- 
ministered to  them  ?  Let  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
answer  this  question :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  youP  Showing  evidently, 
that  the  initiatory  rite  of  their  admission  into 
the  church  of  Christ  will  be  not  by  immersion, 
but  by  sprinkling. 


66 


The  case  of  the  jailor  in  Acts,  16th  chap., 
being  baptized  in  the  jail,  does  not  favor  im- 
mersion. There  is  no  mention  made,  that  he 
and  the  apostles,  Paul  and  Silas,  went  out  either 
to  a  stream  or  a  pool  of  water.  Besides,  ac- 
cording to  the  Roman  laws,  it  would  have  been 
death  to  the  jailor  to  have  left  the  jail  for  any 
purpose  whatever  with  one  of  his  prisoners. 
The  apostles  ^vere  his  prisoners.  It  w^as  at 
midnight  when  he  was  baptized.  The  city 
was  in  agi^tion  in  consequence  of  the  earth- 
quake, how  would  he  have  dared  to  go  out 
will)  his  prisoners.  Besides,  the  apostles  on  the 
following  day,  would  not  leave  even  the  jail 
without  permission  of  the  ruling  aulhorities. 
All  these  circumstances  do  not  favor  immer- 
sion, but  rather  that  he  was  baptized  in  some 
other  manner.  He  evidently  was  baptized  im- 
mediately after  his  conversion  in  the  principal 
room  of  the  jail. 

In  tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  9th  chapter, 
18th  verse,  an  account  is  given  of  the  baptism 
of  Paul.  "  He  arose  and  w^as  baptized."  If 
it  read,  he  arose  and  went  out  to  be"  baptized, 
then  it  might  favor  immersion,  but  it  simply 
says;  <' he  arose  and  was  baptized."  No  man 
laying  claim  to  any  scholarship  in  the  Greek 
language  would  hazard  his  reputation  by  con- 
tending that  the  Greek  word  translated  arose^ 
signifies  any  thing  more  than  to  stand  up — to 
arise  as  from  a  bed.  It  implies  no  motion  for- 
ward. P^ml  had  been  in  a  house — was  very 
weak  in  consequence  of  not  having  taken  any 


67 


food  for  three  days.  He  evidently  just  stood 
up  and  was  in  that  position  baptized,  which 
could  not  have  been  done  by  immersion,  but 
must  have  been  done  in  some  other  manner. 
Let  me  present  another  instance,  in  which  there 
can  be  no  doubt  but  that  water  was  apphed  to 
the  subject.  In  Acts  the  18th  chap.  47  verse, 
we  have  an  account  given  of  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  his  family  and  friends.  Peter  says, 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
be  baptized."  This  is  just  such  language  as  I 
would  employ  to  baptize  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling. But  a  Baptist  clergyman  would  have  to 
change  the  expression,  in  order  to  be  correctly 
understood.  The  appropriate  language  for 
such  a  one  to  use,  would  be,  ''  Can  any  man 
forbid  us  to  go  to  the  water  that  these  should  be 
immersed  .f"'  This  example  clearly  points  out, 
that  they  were  not  immersed,  but  that  water 
was  applied  in  some  other  manner. 

From  the  foregoing  examples  and  illustra- 
tions we  can  safely  draw  the  following  conclu- 
sion, that  the  Greek  Avord,  baptizo,  which  ex- 
presses the  rite  of  baptism,  does  not  necessar- 
ily mean  to  immerse,  but  means  the  application 
of  water  in  other  ways  to  the  person  baptized. 
Again,  it  cannot  be  proved  from  an  examina- 
tion of  any,  or  all  the  passages  in  the  Bible, 
that  an  entire  immersion  was  ever  connected 
with  the  word,  or  that  in  a  single  instance  of  it 
ever  occurred.  The  apostles  were  accustom- 
ed to  baptize  whenever  and  wherever  an  occa- 
sion required  them  to  administer  this  ordinance.. 


68 


Whether  they  were  in  prison,  on  a  journey,  in 
a  sick  room,  or  wherever  proper  subjects  pre- 
sented themselves,  there  they  baptized  them. 
We  do  no  where  read  in  the  Bible  that  they 
ever  went  out  expressly  to  a  river  or  pond  in 
order  to  immerse  their  subjects.  If  the  per- 
sons baptized,  went  into  the  water,  still  there 
is  no  positive  evidence,  that  they  were  im- 
mersed. And  without  a  positive  precept,  no 
man  is  under  obligation  to  be  immersed  under 
water,  unless  he  feels  willing  or  desirous  that 
his  baptism  shall  be  performed  in  that  manner. 
But  notwithstanding  this  clear  representation 
that  the  word  baptizo  means  the  application  of 
water  in  different  other  modes  than  immersion, 
yet  our  Baptist  Brethren  are  unwilling  to  yield 
the  point  in  debate.  They  adhere  to  exclusive 
immersion  as  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism, 
like  as  a  drowning  man  clings  to  a  straw  to 
save  him  from  a  watery  grave.  They  lay  great 
stress  on  the  figurative  language  of  the  apostle 
Paul  as  recorded  in  Rom.  6th  chap.  4th  verse,  as 
favoring  the  mode  of  immersion  alone.  The  fol- 
lowing is  the  language  of  the  apostle,  "  There- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life."  In  order  to  satisfy 
the  mind  of  an  unprejudiced  person  as  to  the 
real  object  of  the  apostle  in  this  passage,  we 
need  only  quote  the  next  verses  which  are  con- 
nected with  the  former  one.  The  apostle  con- 
tinues, "  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together, 


69 


(slill  by  baptism)  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection ;  knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crw- 
cified  (still  by  baptism)  with  him,  that  the  body 
of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  hereafter  we 
should  not  serve  sin.  For  he  that  is  dead  is 
freed  from  sin."  Now  if  being  buried  with  him 
hy  baptism  implies  that  Christ  was  actually  im- 
mersed under  water,  when  he  was  baptized, 
then  the  question  arises,  what  resemblance  is 
there  between  his  baptism  by  immersion,  and 
our  being  planted  with  him  ?     None  whatever. 

Again,  as  the  apostle  in  the  same  connection, 
speaks  of  our  being  crucified  with  Christ  and 
that  by  baptism ;  what  resemblance  can  there 
be  between  immersion  in  water  and  the  nailing 
of  a  body  to  a  cross  ? 

Again  I  reply,  none  whatever.  Had  the 
apostle  said  that  "  we  are  buried  under  water 
in  our  baptism,"  or  had  Christ  died  by  being 
drowned^  then  there  might  be  some  resemblance, 
but  since  he  died  on  the  cross  there  can  be  no 
possible  resemblance.  For  to  immerse  signi- 
fies the  sinking  down  of  the  body  under  water, 
but  to  crucify  signifies  the  raisi^ig  up  the  body 
and  nailing  it  to  a  cross.  The  position  of  the 
body  in  both  respects  is  directly  the  reverse 
of  each  other.  Admitting  for  a  moment  that 
there  is  a  resemblance  between  Christ's  death 
and  his  baptism,  (by  immersion)  then  it  would 
imply  that  immersion  is  not  the  only  mode,  but 
only  one  of  its  modes ;  for  as  we  have  already 
seen  in  the  foregoing  examples  and  illustrations, 


70 


that  baptism  was  performed  by  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  besides  we  have  clearly  seen  too 
that  Christ's  baptism  could  not  have  been  by 
immersion,  but  either  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

Again,  the  apostle  in  the  above  passage  sim- 
ply uses  the  words  "  being  buried  with  him 
by  haptism^''^  where  the  nature  of  this  ordinance 
is  only  mentioned  without  the  least  allusion  to 
the  mode.  Rev.  Mr.  Robison,  the  Baptist 
historian,  and  Rev.  Mr.  Judson,  the  Baptist 
missionary,  together  with  a  great  body  of 
learned  and  pious  divines  "  admit  that  this  pas- 
sage is  misapplied  when  used  as  evidence  of 
the  mode  of  baptism." 

The  following  appears  to  be  the  correct  ex- 
position of  this  passage :  "  Therefore  as  he, 
viz.,  Christ  was  naturally  buried,  so  are  we 
spiritually  buried  by  that  forgiveness  of  sins, 
which  subjected  us  to  a  spiritual  death.  That 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life."*  In  a  word,  the 
baptism  spoken  off  is  spiritual  and  has  not  the 
least  reference  to  any  particular  mode  of  the 
external  rite.  It  means  that  believers  in  Christ 
are  dead  to  sin,  dead  to  all  sinful  affections, 
pursuits  and  actions  •,  or  as  it  is  expressed  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  "  I  am  crucified  with  Christ, 
being  made  conformable  unto  his  death,  dead 
indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  to  God  through  Je- 
sus Christ  our  Lord." 

♦President'  Beecher. 


71 


A  gam,  there  is  another  passage  urged  with 
much  confidence  as  favoring  immersion,  to  be 
tl]e  only  valid  mode.  It  is  in  Eph.  4th  chap. 
5th  verse  :  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  07ie  baptism.^'' 
It  is  contended  that  baptism  administered  by 
water  is  here  meant,  and  since  there  is  but  one 
baptism,  there  can  be  but  one  mode  of  admin- 
istering the  rite.  Allowing  that  water  baptism 
is  here  meant,  yet  nothing  is  favorable  to  any 
particular  mode  of  using  the  water  in  this  or- 
dinance. Its  oneness  does  not  consist  in  the 
mode,  but  in  the  design  and  the  object  of  it,  ad- 
ministered by  a  suitable  person  in  the  name  of 
the  trinity  and  by  the  use  of  water.  Analo- 
gous to  this  is  the  Loid's  Supper — one  simple 
ordinance,  designed  to  commemorate  the  dying 
love  of  Christ.  Its  oneness  does  not  consist 
in  the  manner  where  received  or  how  received  ; 
whether  in  an  upper  room  or  in  the  church — 
whether  the  partakers  receive  it  sitting,  stand- 
ing, kneeling  or  lying  on  a  bed — whether  on 
the  Lord's  day  Or  in  the  week — whether  at 
evening,  noon  or  morning.  These  attending 
circumstances  do  not  effect  the  oneness  of  this 
ordinance.  Now  to  reason  in  a  similar  man- 
ner, why  should  the  mode  of  the  use  of  water 
in  baptism  effect  its  oneness  ? 

But  the  objector  still  returns  and  says,  "  but 
Christ  went  in  the  Jordan^  and  all  true  disciples 
must  follow  him  there  ?"  To  which  I  reply, 
admit  it,  that  Christ  went  in  the  Jordan,  he  has 
not  told  us  that  we  should  follow  him  there. 
There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Bible,  that  says, 


that  we  must  go  in  the  Jordan  to  be  baptized, 
or  in  other  words,  that  we  must  be  baptized 
by  immersion  alone.  All  the  water  in  the  Jor- 
dan in  and  of  itself  cannot  cleanse  the  heart  of 
any  man.  Christ  said  to  Nicodemus,  John  3rd 
chapter,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

But  the  objector  says,  "  we  must  follow  th^ 
footsteps  of  Christ  in  every  particular.^''  To 
which  1  reply.  Let  us  pass  by  his  washing 
the  disciples'  feet,  w^hich  the  objector  does  not 
do — let  us  pass  by  his  many  other  acts  of  kind- 
ness and  love,  which  the  objector  does  not 
manifest — let  me  direct  your  attention  to  the 
time  and  the  circumstances,  when  Christ  first 
instituted  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  was  on  Thurs- 
day instead  of  Sunday.  It  was  in  the  evening 
instead  of  the  day  time — it  was  in  an  upper 
room  instead  of  the  church,  unleavened  bread 
was  used  instead  of  the  finest  leavened  wheat- 
bread.  He  did  neither  sit,  stand,  nor  kneel, 
but  reclined  on  his  elbow.  It  was  a  full  meal — 
an  evening  supper,  instead  of  a  small  piece  of 
bread.  No  females  were  present,  none  but  his 
disciples  together  with  Judas.  There  and  un- 
der these  circumstances,  Christ  celebrated  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Now  if  the  objector  insists 
that  w^e  must  follow  the  footsteps  of  Christ  in 
every  particular,  then  the  Lord's  Supper  must 
be  celebrated  at  just  such  a  place — wMth  just 
so  many  present,  together  with  a  Judas. 


73 


Again,  I  would  ask  the  question,  if  a  small 
piece  of  bread,  and  that  leavened,  answers  the 
same  purpose  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  that  a  full  meal  does,  why  will  not  a 
small  quantity  of  water  answer  the  like  purpose 
for  the  rite  of  baptism  that  a  whole  fountain 
does  ?  Permit  me  to  tell  you  that  the  Greek 
word,  which  is  translated  supper^  does  not  mean 
a  small  particle  of  bread,  but  a  full  meal — an 
evening  supper.  Now  then  it  appears  consis- 
tent that  if  a  small  piece  of  bread  answers  the 
same  purpose  in  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  then  by  parity  of  reasoning,  a 
small  quantity  of  water  will  answer  the  same 
purpose  in  the  administration  of  the  ordinance 
of  baptism. 

Again,  if  immersion  was  the  only  scriptural 
mode  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  why  then 
does  the  Lord  bless  the  labors  of  those  ministers 
and  churches  who  administer  this  rite  of  baptism 
in  any  mode  ?  When  we  look  at  the  catalogue 
of  the  annual  increase  of  the  number  of  the 
members  in  these  Evangelical  churches,  who 
do  not  baptize  by  immersion  only,  who  will 
deny  that  they  are  not  blessed  of  the  Lord? 
Not  only  are  they  increasing  annually  in  num- 
ber, but  in  piety  and  in  closer  union  with  God — 
in  more  holy  fellowship  with  each  other,  and 
in  Unity  of  action  for  the  extension  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom  upon  the  earth.  Now  if 
God  does  so  richly  bless  them  and  their  labors 
of  love,  can  they  be  out  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  because  they  cannot  believe  and  prac- 
c 


14 


tise  heliever'^s  baptism  only?  No,  brethren. 
We  have  abundant  reason  to  adopt  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apostle  Paul,  "  If  God  be  for  us, 
who  can  be  against  us  ?" 

God,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  goodness,  blesses 
all  Evangelical  churches.  His  grace  is  not 
withheld  because  the  modes  of  administering 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  in  different  branches 
of  his  church  are  not  alike ;  should  we  then,  the 
recipients  of  his  grace,  make  any  distinction? 
Should  we  then  withhold  the  right  hand  of 
christian  fellowship  from  those  whom  he  has 
accepted  and  adopted  in  his  own  family  to  be 
his  beloved  children,  because  they  cannot  be- 
lieve in  believer'' s  baptism  only?  Has  Christ 
our  great  pattern  and  exemplar  not  taught  us  to 
pray  "  thy  will  be  done  on  earth,  even  as  it  is 
done  in  heaven,"  how  then  can  we  be  Christ's, 
if  we  refuse  and  reject  those  who  are  his  by 
adoption — belong  to  his  visible  church — expe- 
rience his  rich  grace  and  give  all  the  evidences 
of  genuine  Christianity  ?  Brethren,  I  have 
heard  the  religious  experience  of  many — I 
have  read  of  the  religious  experience  and  hap- 
py deaths  of  many,  but  I  have  not  yet  heard  or 
read  of  one,  who  regretted,  even  at  death's 
door,  that  he  had  not  been  immersed  under 
water  in  the  ordinance  of  his  baptism. 

Again,  although  ministers  of  other  denomi- 
nations have  left  their  respective  organizations 
and  united  with  those  of  exclusive  immersion 
and  communion,  yet  ministers  belonging  to 
them,  have  likewise  left  them  and  united  with 


75 


other  denominations.  From  good  authority,  I 
can  mention  the  names  of  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  ministers  in  the  christian  church, 
that  have  changed  their  views  on  exclusive 
immersion  and  communion.  I  can  mention  the 
names  of  Janeway,  Skinner,  Smith,  Howe, 
Lane,  Spencer,  two  by  the  name  of  Dodge, 
Snow,  Ogelby,  Chapin,  Potter,  Allen,  Wilson, 
John  Wayland  and  others,  men  distinguished 
for  talent,  learning,  piety  and  usefulness.  One 
Edwards  has  written  an  able  tract  on  the  sub- 
ject, styled,  "  Short  way  with  the  Baptists.'''' 

In  addition  to  those  who  have  changed  their 
views  on  the  subject  of  exclusive  immersion, 
we  have  authentic  accounts  that  hundreds  of 
ministers  and  hundreds  of  churches  of  the 
Anabaptists  in  Europe,  have  adopted  pouring 
instead  of  immersion.  They  found  by  sad  ex- 
perience that  candidates  for  baptism  when  ly- 
ing on  sick  beds  or  having  infirmities,  could 
not  be  immersed  under  water ;  they  have  there- 
fore deliberately  given  up  immersion  and  sub- 
stituted pouring  or  sprinkling.  And  the  work 
of  change  is  still  in  progress  among  them,  and 
the  prospects  are  that  before  long  many  more, 
if  not  all  will  give  up  immersion  and  adopt  the 
common  mode  of  baptizing  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling. 

Again,  not  only  is  a  change  of  view  in  pro- 
gress among  the  Anabaptists,  but  a  change  is 
going  on  among  the  Baptists  in  England,  on  the 
subject  of  close  communion,  or  close  baptism 
as  it  is  called,  which  chana:^  is  not  wifavoralle 
c2 


n 


to  sprinkling.  In  a  letter  that  appeared  in 
many  of  the  religious  papers  of  this  country 
during  the  previous  year,  we  learn  that  there 
is  a  great  tendency  among  the  Baptists  in  Eng- 
land, towards  a  closer  union  with  their  christian 
brethren  of  other  denominations.  It  appears 
that  there  is  a  committee,  called  ''  the  Central 
Committee  of  Particular  Baptists  in  England, 
maintaining  strict  communion  to  the  Baptists 
of  America."  This  committee  was  appointed 
in  April  1841,  to  arrest  as  it  is  said,  the  pro- 
gress of  open  communion,  which  they  lament 
as  wrong  and  as  tending  to  subvert  their  very 
existence  as  a  denomination.  They  intreat  the 
aid  of  their  American  brethren  and  state  their 
emergency  in  the  following  terms.  ''  We  be- 
lieve that  there  is  still  a  considerable  majority 
of  strict  communion  churches  in  our  denomi- 
nation, but  in  not  a  ^qw  of  these,  the  -pastor^ 
and  therefore,  perhaps  an  increasing  propor- 
tion of  members  are  in  favor  of  an  open  com- 
munion ;  so  that  it  is  probable  that  the  number 
of  strict  churches  will  continue  to  decrease; 
and  this  probability  is  strengthened  by  the 
fact,  that  most  of  the  tutors  of  our  colleges.^  and 
of  the  students  under  their  care,  are  also  in 
favor  of  open  communion^ 

In  connection  with  the  above  change  in  the 
views  of  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion 
and  communion,  permit  me  to  remark  that  upon 
an  examination  of  administering  the  ordinance 
of  baptisni,  as  recorded  in  church  history,  no 
particular  mode  was  held  essential,  until  we 


77 


come  down  to  the  year  1522,  when  the  Ana- 
baptists arose  in  Germany.  But  as  we  have 
already  seen,  a  great  portion  of  them  have 
changed  their  views  in  favor  of  pouring.  From 
that  period  to  the  present,  there  has  been  in 
some  portion  of  the  Protestant  church  an  un- 
happy division  on  this  subject.  Our  respected 
Baptist  Brethren  do  consider  immersion  alone 
essential  to  christian  baptism.  The  GreeR 
church  as  we  have  already  shown,  practise 
both  immersion  and  affusion,  but  neither  are 
regarded  essential.  The  Roman  Catholic 
church  practises  pouring  and  sprinkling.  She 
has  always  done  so,  since  her  very  origin.  In 
a  word,  although  there  are  individual  members 
in  all  those  respective  churches,  who  may  re- 
gard immersion  as  more  expressive  of  the  rite 
of  baptism  and  do  perhaps  immerse,  but  yet  do 
not  consider  it  the  only  essential  mode.  Such 
for  example,  were  the  views  of  Dr.  Campbell, 
of  Edinburg.  But  still  he  did  not  maintain  it 
to  be  the  only  mode,  but  that  others  were 
equally  valid. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  seen  that  the  Greek 
word,  baptizo,  does  in  no  case,  signify  exclu- 
sive immersion,  but  the  application  of  water 
in  any  manner  to  the  subject.  We  have  seen 
that  there  is  no  specific  mode  pointed  out  by 
the  Great  Head  of  the  church,  so  as  to  consti- 
tute it  the  only  essential  one.  We  have  seen 
too  that  as  such  it  is  now  regarded,  with  the 
exception  of  our  Baptist  Brethren,  and  has 
c3 


7a 


been  so  understood  generally,  in  the  christian 
church  in  all  asres. 

o 

To  conclude.  The  first  inference  from  this 
subject  is,  that  to  consider  immersion  aloyie^  as 
the  essential  mode,  is  investing  that  mode  with 
a  sacredness  which  will  exert  an  unhapp)^  ten- 
dency in  the  minds  of  our  Baptist  Brethren. 
This  principle  is  clearly  manifested  in  the  case 
of  a  sect,  called  Campbellites,  who  have  sece- 
ded from  the  Baptist  church.  They  have,  un- 
happily, been  the  means  of  rending  asunder 
many  a  flourishing  congregation  of  that  de- 
nomination. They  are  very  numerous  in  the 
southern  and  western  states.  They  place  an 
undue  attachment  to  immersion  under  water  as 
being  the  only  mode  of  baptism.  Nay,  they 
consider  it  a  saving  ordinance.  Mr.  Campbell 
their  leader  has  declared  "  that  immersion  is  so 
significant  and  so  expressive,  that  when  the 
baptized  believer  rises  out  of  the  water — en- 
ters the  world  a  second  time — he  enters  it  as 
innocent — as  clean — as  unspotted  as  an  angel." 
Our  Baptist  Brethren,  lay,  in  like  manner,  too 
great  a  stress  upon  immersion.  And  although 
they  do  not  say,  in  so  many  words,  that  it  is  a 
saving  ordinance,  yet  they  carry  out  this  prin- 
ciple by  their  close  communion,  that  they  alone 
have  a  christian  baptism,  and  therefore,  are 
alone  the  true  followers  of  the  Lord.  They 
regard  themselves  as  possessing  alone  the  pro- 
mise of  the  gospel,  and  are  alone  entitled  to  the 
blessings  ^of  the  Lord.  While  they  regard 
other  denominations  of  christians  as  virtually 


79 


not  belonging  to  the  christian  church,  but  as 
living  and  acting  in  violation  of  the  commands 
of  God,  and  if  saved,  cannot  be  saved  in  God's 
appointed  way,  but  by  his  uncovenanted  mer- 
cies. 

Again,  by  laying  so  great  a  stress  upon  the 
particular  mode,  our  Baptist  Brethren  have  in- 
jured themselves.  In  the  energetic  language 
of  President  Beecher,  "  It  has  injured  them. 
Among  them  are  eminently  pious  men,  but  a 
bad  system  has  ensnared  and  betrayed  them. 
How  else  can  we  account  for  it  that  they  should 
have  dared  solemnly  and  formally  to  arrogate 
to  themselves  that  they  are  divinely  and  pecu- 
liarly set  for  the  defense  of  the  gospel,  and  that 
the  heathen  world  must  look  to  them  alone  for 
an  unveiled  view  of  the  glories  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ.  Has  it  come  to  this  ^  Take  away 
immersion,  and  is  the  gospel  shorne  of  all  its 
glories  ?  Yea,  is  the  gospel  itself  annihilated  ? 
Is  immersion  the  gospel  ?  What  more  can  the 
most  bigotted  defender  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion and  sacramental  sanctification  say  than  all 
this  ?  But  do  our  pious  Baptist  Brethren  mean 
all  this }  No !  a  thousand  times.  No.  They 
know  and  feel,  as  well  as  we,  that  immersion 
is  not  the  gospel.  These  facts  only  show, 
what  all  experience  has  shown,  the  danger  of 
holding  a  system  which  makes  a  mere  form  of 
so  much  moment  in  practice  as  to  outweigh 
holiness  of  heart  and  of  life." 

Placing  so  much  dependence  upon  a  parti- 
cular mode,  a  narrowness  of  feeling  and  an  un- 
o4 


80 

charitable  and  even  an  unchristian  spirit  has 
been  generated  in  the  hearts  of  our  Baptist 
Brethren.  Their  system  has  had  a  tendency 
to  exalt  themselves  in  their  own  estimation^ — to 
regard  tliemselves  as  the  only  true  depositories 
of  gospel  truths  and  gospel  ordinances  in  this 
world.  This  unhappy  spirit  has  particularly 
been  manifested  in  relation  to  the  American, 
and  to  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Societies ; 
those  two  noble  and  christian  institutions ;  in- 
stitutions, which  are  susSained  by  the  tears,  the 
prayers  and  the  liberalities  of  millions  of  pro- 
fessing christians  of  different  denominations, 
who  can  lay  aside  their  sectarian  peculiarities 
and  unite  on  one  common  basis  to  disseminate 
the  word  of  life  throughout  the  world,  but  our 
Baptist  Brethren  arrogate  to  themselves  a  pe- 
culiar divine  appointment  to  propagate  their 
own  sectarian  principles — to  define  the  pecu- 
liar mode  of  the  christian  ordinance  of  baptism, 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  defined,  and 
thus  charge  those  two  great  national  societies 
"  as  virtually  combining  to  obscure  a  part  at 
least  of  divine  revelation,"  and  say  that  "  the 
real  meaning  of  words  used  in  connection  with 
one  of  Christ's  ordinances  is  purposely  kept  out 
of  sight.''^*  Such  serious  charges — such  a  vain 
bigotted  spirit  manifested  on  their  part  towards 
those  societies,  to  which  belong  men  certainly 
as  holy — as  sincere — as  learned  and  as  defend- 
ers for  gospel  truths  and  gospel  ordinances  as 

*See  the  Report  of  their  Bible  Society,  1840,  p.  39. 


81 


themselves ;  such  a  spirit,  I  say,  does  not  cor- 
respond with  the  teachings  of  Christ — the 
promptings  of  the  Holy  Spirit — the  first  warm, 
generous  impulses  of  the  christian  heart,  but  is 
the  result  of  sectarian  principles,  and  of  a  false, 
deluded  and  deluding  system,  which  pervades 
the  minds  of  the  great  body  of  our  Baptist 
Brethren. 

Again,  not  only  is  it  injurious  to  themselves 
to  lay  too  great  a  stress  upon  the  particular 
mode  of  baptism,  but  it  is  injurious  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  whole  community.  The  gos- 
pel of  Christ  infuses  peace  and  charity  in  the 
hearts  of  its  professed  followers  towards  each 
other  among  all  the  christian  denominations, 
but  their  system  has  a  tendency  directly  the 
reverse.  On  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Bible,  christians  of  every  name  can  unite 
in  worshipping  the  God  of  heaven — labor  to 
promote  the  best  interest  of  Christ's  kingdom 
upon  earth — sing  and  pray  together;  should 
they  then  be  placed  in  hostile  array  against 
each  other  on  non-fundamentals — nay,  on  mere 
external  rites  and  forms  ^  The  system  of  our 
Baptist  Brethren  does  this.  It  makes  non-fun- 
damental principles  apparently  of  more  import- 
ance than  fundamental  doctrines.  These  prin- 
ciples unfortunately  arm  holy  men  against  holy 
men — these  alienate  feelings  disturb  oftentimes 
the  peace  of  whole  christian  communities — set 
near  relations  at  variance — encourage  infidel- 
ity and  check  the  work  of  grace  in  hearts,  de- 
sirous of  gospel  truths.  The  evils,  resulting 
c5 


82 


from  such  a  system,  have  been  often  manifested 
in  times  of  revivals ;  when  the  public  mind  was 
absorbed  in  religious  matters,  and  when  souls 
were  inquiring-  the  way  to  Zion,  then,  often  in- 
stead of  pointing  the  serious  enquirer  to  the 
Lamb  of  God  as  their  only  blessed  hope  of 
heaven,  the  subjects  of  "  immersion  you  must 
follow  Christ  in  the  Jordan,^^  &c.,  formed  the 
prominent  topics  of  conversation  and  anxiety 
by  our  Baptist  Brethren.  If  any  of  the  seri- 
ous in  their  own  revivals  happened  to  belong 
to  families  of  other  denominations,  attempts 
were  made,  and  that  too  often  successful,  in 
prejudicing  their  minds  against  their  own  min- 
isters and  people  and  doctrines  and  churches. 
Even  cliildren  have  had  their  minds  thus  un- 
happily wrought  upon.  Passages  of  scripture 
were  given,  which,  instead  of  pointing  the  in- 
quirer to  Christ  for  salvation,  apparently  favor- 
ed their  own  sectarian  views — thus  arming 
them,  as  was  supposed,  in  warding  off  all  the 
attempts,  which  their  own  ministers  and  friends 
might,  in  the  discharge  of  their  solemn  duties, 
urge  upon  their  minds  as  the  one  thing  needful 
for  peace  and  pardon.  Such  scenes  have  been 
witnessed  with  grief  And  such  scenes  too 
have  not  been  uncommon  of  late.  The  sad 
consequences  naturally  were  unholy  controver- 
sies on  non-fundamental  principles — the  depar- 
ture of  the  Holy  Spirit — the  check  of  the  re- 
vival and  the  ruin  of  many  precious  souls.  All 
this  is  wrong ;  radically  wrong.  Over  which 
many  christians  have  deeply  mourned  and  fer- 


83 


vently  prayed.  Our  most  judicious  Baptist 
Brethren  have  seen  and  felt  too  with  us,  the 
sad  consequences,  which  their  own  system  di- 
rectly tends  to  promote.  Brethren  these  things 
ought  not  so  to  be  ! ! 

But  considering  the  mode  of  baptism  as  un- 
essential, and  performed,  regarding  the  bodily 
constitution  and  the  health  of  the  candidate — 
the  season  of  the  year — the  climate — the  de- 
cency— the  convenience  and  solemnity  of  the 
ordinance,  no  undue  stress  will  be  laid  on  any 
particular   mode.*     The   great  body   of  the 

*Baptism  performed  by  immersion,  is  not  in  accordance 
with  that  tender  sense  of  decency  and  propriety  wliich 
ought  always  to  characterize  females.  Who  has  not  often 
seen  them,  after  beinff  immersed,  shrink  as  it  were,  by  an 
inward  sense  of  indehcate  exposure  from  the  gaze  of  the 
spectators?  Neither  is  it  calculated  to  solemnize  the  mind 
or  retain  that  composed  and  devotional  spirit,  which  affu- 
sion produces.  Who  has  not  often  witnessed,  in  the  female 
candidate  when  about  to  be  immersed,  the  hurried  breath- 
ing— tlie  violent  palpitation  of  the  heart  and  her  spasmodic 
grasp  on  the  arm  of  the  administrator?  And  when  raised 
up  out  of  the  water  has  she  not  oftentimes  strangled — mani- 
fested deep  agitation  and  even  a  distress  of  soul?  Besides, 
who  will  deny  but  that  severe  sicknesses — derangements 
and  even  deaths  have  not  oftentimes  been  the  sad  conse- 
quences of  their  immersion? 

Again,  immersion  is  not  fitted  for  universal  practice 
throughout  the  world  at  all  times  and  under  all  circum- 
stances in  life.  Thousands  of  the  Anabaptists,  who  once 
were  strong  advocates  for  immersion,  have  seen  this  and 
have  thus  wisely  given  it  up.  Paseing  by  the  sick  bed — the 
infirm — the  delicate  in  health  and  the  lame,  examine  upon 
your  map  those  portions  of  the  world  inhabited  where  water 
sufficient  for  immersion  could  only  be  found  a  hundred 
miles  distant.  Can  immersion  be  conveniently  practised  in 
such  countries?  No.  There  are  other  portions,  where, 
amidst  mountains  of  ice  and   almost  perpetual  snow,  it 

c6 


84 

christian  church,  though  differing  on  various 
subjects,  yet  as  it  regards  the  mode  of  baptism, 
have  no  contention.  They  believe  in  the  na- 
ture and  importance  of  the  ordinance, — they 
attend  to  its  requirements  as  well  as  the  res- 
pected denominations  of  christians,  called  Bap- 
tists. Nay,  they  in  one  word,  are  as  good 
Baptists  as  those  are,  who  are  expressly  desig- 
nated by  that  name. 

The  second  inference  from  this  subject  is,  to 
consider  immersion  as  the  only  essejitial  mode 
in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  then  there  is  no 
christian  church  upon  earth.  You  have  already 
been  told  that  there  was  no  denomination  of 
christians,  from  the  death  of  Christ,  until  the 
Anabaptists  arose  in  Germany,  in  1522,  that 
considered  any  particular  mode  essential.  And 
after  them,  the  Calvinistic  Baptist  church  in 
England,  which  commenced,  as  stated  in  the 
preceding  discourse,  September  12th,  1633. 

must  be  hig'hly  imprudent,  and  if  at  all  performed,  it  is  dart' 
gerous.  As  an  evidence  of  which,  we  are  told  by  Captain 
Cochrane  in  his  travels  in  the  Northern  Regions  of  Europe 
and  Asia  in  1820 — 1,  the  following:  "After  they  had  pa- 
raded a  little,  the  priest  baptized  men  and  women,  not  by 
sprinkling  them  with  water,  but  obU.3;ing  them  to  strip  mid 
plunge  three  times  into  a  caldron  of  ice  wdtter.  Tiie  long 
hair  of  the  women  became  surrounded  by  icicles."  A 
question  arises  here  "does  the  gospel  of  Christ,  require  the 
indecency — the  stragglings  of  soul — the  opposite  of  all  de- 
votional feelings  and  Ihe  exposure  of  liealth,  in  the  public 
profession  of  its  candidates?"  No.  No.  Immersion  has 
manifested  all  these,  but  affusion  never.  Does  not  then 
affusion,  in  these  respects,  appear  to  be  the  most  reasonable 
and  proper  1    ^ 


85 


Now  tbe  question  arises,  who  baptized  by 
immersion,  those  that  constituted  their  first 
church?  The  clergyman's  name  was  Spils- 
bury.  Another  question  arises ;  had  he  been 
immersed  by  one  of  the  same  faith  and  order, 
who  himself  too,  had  been  immersed  ?  Ivimey, 
the  author  of  the  History  of  the  English  Bap- 
tist, vol.  1,  p.  138,  when  speaking  of  their  ori- 
gin, says  :  "  And  as  they  believed  that  baptism 
was  not  rightly  administered  to  infants,  so  they 
looked  upon  the  baptism,  which  they  had  at 
that  age  as  invalid,  whereupon  most  of  all  re- 
ceived a  new  baptism,  (by  being  immersed  in 
water)  on  personal  profession  of  repentance 
and  faith.^'  From  which  it  appears,  that  those 
who  were  then  immersed,  were  not  so  immers- 
ed by  one,  who  had  himself  been  immersed  by 
one  of  the  same  faith  and  order,  consequently 
to  reason  according  to  their  own  principles  laid 
down,  their  baptism  was  invalid,  because  per- 
formed by  one  who  had  not  truly  himself  been 
immersed. 

Again,  how  did  the  Baptist  church  in  Amer- 
ica, take  her  origin.'*  We  are  informed  in 
Governor  Winthrop's  Journal,  and  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Backus'  Church  History  of  New  England, 
that  the  Rev.  Roger  Williams  was  the  founder 
of  the  Baptist  church  in  America,  in  the  year 
1639.  He  having  been  a  minister  of  a  Pedo- 
baptist  church  in  Salem,  Mass.,  from  thence  he 
was  banished  for  some  civil  affair.  He  fled 
to  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  together  with 
eleven  of  his  people.     There  they  embraced 


86 


Baptist  views  and  organized  a  church.  But 
how  did  they  do  it?  The  following  is  the  ac- 
count given :  "  One  Ezekiel  Holyman,  who 
was  a  layman,  and  who  had  been  baptized  in 
infancy,  and  by  sprinkling,  and  consequently 
had  never  been  baptized  according  to  the 
views  of  the  Baptists,  took  Mr.  Williams  and 
baptized  him  by  immersion,  or  rather  went 
through  the  ceremony  of  baptizing  him ;  and 
then  Mr.  Williams,  who  upon  the  principles  of 
the  Baptists,  had  never  been  baptized,  re-bap- 
tized Mr.  Holyman,  the  very  individual,  who 
had  just  before  gone  through  the  ceremony  of 
baptizing  him.,  and  also  the  ten  others  who  fled 
from  Massachusetts  bay."  Now,  upon  the 
principle  of  our  Baptist  Brethren,  none  of 
these  were  actually  baptized,  and  consequently 
no  Baptist  church  was  ever  established.  The 
baptism  which  Roger  Williams  received,  hav- 
ing been  performed  only  by  a  layman.  Thus, 
by  attempting  to  unchurch  all  those  denomina- 
tions, which  have  not  been  immersed  by  one, 
who  had  himself  been  immersed,  professing 
the  same  faith  and  order,  they  actually  un- 
church themselves.  Nay,  to  follow  out  their 
own  principles  of  reasoning,  there  is  actually 
no  valid  baptism,  and  consequently,  no  chris- 
tian church  upon  earth. 

Such  was  the  conclusion  to  which  Roger 
Williams  himself  arrived  ;  for  it  is  said  that 
after  preaching  for  several  months  as  a  Baptist 
minister,  v"he  then  separated  himself  from 
them,  doubting  the  validity  of  all   baptisms. 


87 


because  a  direct  succession  could  not  he  traced 
from  the  apostles  to  tlie  ojfficiati7ig  ministers?'' 

But  blessed  be  God,  we  are  not  placed  in 
this  unhappy  condition.  I  believe  that  Christ 
has  a  church  upon  earth,  built  upon  a  founda- 
tion so  firm,  that  all  the  combined  powers  of 
earth  and  hell,  cannot  prevail  against  her ;  a 
church  nurtured,  sustained  and  blessed  by  him- 
self as  her  king  and  protector.  Of  which 
church,  all  Evangelical  denominations  consti- 
tute a  part,  and  hence  all  ought  to  be  knit  to- 
gether in  the  tenderest  bonds  of  affection,  aid 
each  other  in  opposing  sin  in  every  form,  and 
labor  together  for  the  extension  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom  upon  the  earth. 

Another  inference,  resulting  from  consider- 
ing immersion  alone  essential^  is,  that  it  leads 
to  the  practice  of  close  communion.  It  is  not 
uncommon  with  our  Baptist  Brethren  in  a  time 
of  deep  seriousness  to  tell  the  young  convert, 
"  unite  with  us  and  you  will  be  sure  to  be 
right ;  if  the  way  in  which  water  is  applied  is 
not  essential,  you  will  be  right ;  but  if  it  es- 
sential you  will  be  right.  At  all  events  by 
uniting  with  us  you  will  be  more  in  the  right 
than  by  uniting  with  any  other  denomination." 
Immersion  is  thus  prominently  held  up  beibre 
the  mind  of  the  young  convert  as  all  important 
in  making  a  profession  of  his  faith,  while  how- 
ever tbe  principle  of  close  communimi  is  left 
in  the  shade.  Many  serious  inquirers  after 
truth  have  tlius  been  deceived.  They  have 
ignorantly  subscribed  to  a  principle,  whicb  is 


revolting  to  every  christian  feeling;  which, 
with  the  sharp  knife  of  excision,  cuts  asunder 
the  bonds  and  fellowship  of  christians,  who 
ought  to  be  one  in  Christ.  But  the  question 
arises,  what  is  close  communion  ?  It  is  com- 
munion at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  confined  and 
restricted  to  a  single  denomination ;  all  others, 
however  sound  in  faith,  however  devoted  to 
God,  however  satisfactory  the  evidence  of 
their  christian  experience,  yet  are  debarred 
from  partaking  with  them  at  this  feast  of  love  F 
Though  they  will  unite  with  others  in  worship- 
ping God  at  the  same  altar — sing  together  the 
same  songs  of  Zion — unite  in  prayer,  and  even 
their  ministers  will  acknowledge  the  ministers 
of  other  denominations,  pray  for  them,  call 
them  brothers  in  the  Lord,  exchange  pulpits 
with  them,  yet  when  their  own  communion- 
table is  spread,  those  ministers  are  not  invited, 
and  even  should  they  approach,  they  would  be 
debarred  from  that  great  blessing  and  told, 
''''ice  cannot  fellowship  you  because  you  have  n(4 
been  immersed.'''^ 

It  was  in  view  of  this,  that  that  eminent  ser 
vant  of  God,  the  late  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  him 
self  a  Baptist,  opposed  close  communion,  called 
it  '■'■party  communion,''''  but  advocated  open 
communion,  and  it  is  upon  the  same  principle 
that  such  a  large  and  respectable  portion  of 
the  Baptist  church  in  England  have  come  out 
in  favor  of  open  communion.  And  I  have  been 
informed,  t^pon  good  authority,  that  the  cause 
of  open  communion  is  beginning  to  develope 


itself  more  and  more  among  our  Baptist  Breth- 
ren in  this  country. 

In  consequence  of  close  communion,  many  a 
heart  has  bled,  many  a  tear  has  been  shed, 
many  a  struggle  of  soul  has  been  endured, 
many  relations  and  kindred  of  the  deepest 
piety  living  together — others  meeting,  after 
years  of  separation,  in  a  christian  church  at 
the  time  of  communion  have  been  denied  this 
heavenly  privilege  of  uniting  together  in  this 
christian  ordinance-  Is  this  genuine  Christian- 
ity ?  Is  this  the  Spirit  of  the  great  Master  of 
the  least?  Is  this  manifesting  brotherly  love? 
Is  it  setting  s«ch  an  example  before  the  world, 
so  as  to  constrain  the  fieople  oi"  the  world  to 
exclaim  in  the  language  of  the  heathens  of  old^ 
"see  how  these  brethren  love  each  other?'*' 
Is  this  following  out  the  injunctions  of  Christ, 
when  speaking  of  brotherly  love,  "  By  this 
shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples, 
if  ye  love  one  another ;  as  I  have  loved  you,  ye 
ought  also  to  love  one  another  T''  The  apostle 
John,  whose  very  soul  was  filled  with  love, 
says,  "  By  this  we  know  that  we  have  passed 
from  death  unto  life,  because  we  love  the  hreth- 
reny  Is  it  brotherly  love  to  debar  each  other 
from  the  table  of  the  Lord,  to  deny  to  them 
the  greatest  and  the  most  heavenly  of  all  earth- 
iy  blessings?  Who  can  read  the  farewell 
prayer  of  Christ,  in  John  17th  chap.,  and  not 
have  his  very  soul  moved  with  love  to  him,  and 
to  our  fellow  christians  ?  Christ  had  before 
him  his  disciples,  to  wliom  he  had  administered 


90 

the  christian  Passover,  although  they  had  not 
been  baptized  but  had  only  been  circumcised, 
and  yet  he  did  not  debar  them  from  the  graci- 
ous privilege,  but  administered  it  to  them  with 
his  own  hands,  and  shall  we  be  wiser  and  more 
holy  than  he  was  ?  He,  at  the  eve  of  cruci* 
fixion,  prayed  that  all  christians  might  be  unit- 
ed, be  one,  one  in  common  faith,  one  in  spirit, 
one  in  purpose  and  action,  one  in  love,  and  one 
in  the  celebration  of  the  ordinances  established 
in  his  church  for  their  own  spiritual  good. 

1  will  conclude  this  subject  in  the  language 
of  an  eloquent  writer:*  "Free  communion," 
says  he,  "  should  be  practised  because  the 
church  on  earth  ought  to  become,  as  far  as 
possible,  like  the  church  in  heaven.  With  the 
church  in  heaven,  where  all  cast  their  crowns 
at  the  feet  of  the  Lamb  and  sing,  '  Hallelujah  ! 
the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth ;  blessing 
and  honor,  glory  and  power  be  unto  Him  that 
:  sitteth  on  the  throne  forever  and  ever;'  there 
close  communion  finds  no  countenance.  There 
one  Master  presides,  one  table  is  spread,  one 
spirit  reigns,  one  practice  prevails.  There  all 
who  have  been  baptized  into  one  body,  by  one 
spirit,  and  washed  in  that  one  fountain  opeq^ed 
for  the  house  of  David,  and  are  of  one  heart, 
and  one  mind,  dwell  together  in  perfect  unity. 
There  free  communion  of  heart  with  heart, 
and  soul  with  soul,  pervades  the  unnumbered, 
holy,  glorious  throng.     The  church  on  earth 

*Rev.  Orin  l-^owler. 


91 

ou^bt  to  bear  a  strong  likeness  to  tbe  church 
in  heaven.  As  there  is  but  one  table  above, 
there  should  be  but  one  below.  As  perfect 
love  binds  all  hearts  to  God  and  each  other 
there,  so  love  unrestricted  should  bind  all 
hearts  together  here.  All  who  have  drunk  at 
the  same  fountain,  are  enlisted  under  the  same 
banner,  and  will  finally  dwell  in  the  same  king- 
dom, sing  the  same  song,  and  rejoice  forever 
in  the  glories  of  the  same  Redeemer;  are 
bound  to  make  the  church  militant  as  far  as 
possible,  like  the  church  triumphant,  and  thus 
urge  forward  the  chariot  wheels  of  the  Prince 
of  life ;  and  this  never  can  be  done^  unless 
free,  unrestricted  communion  of  visible  be- 
lievers, who  are  agreed  in  the  fundamental 
truths  of  the  gospel,  be  universally  practiced.''^ 
Amen. 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Pog-es. 
Text  and  Introduction,  --,.--  5 — 6 
Church  of  God  under  both  dispensations,         -  6 — 9 

Infant  membersiiip  under  the  old  dispensation,  -  9 — 15 
Infant  membership  under  the  new  family  baptisms,  15 — 11 
Initiation  of  infants  under  both  dispensations,  17 — 20 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Baptism  is  a  spiritual  ordinance,  circumcision  is  not,  21 — 23 
Circumcision  was  applied  to  males  only,  -         23 — 24 

Belicveth  and  is  baptized,  -        .        -        -     24 — 26 

What  benefit  can  it  be,  -         -        -        -         26 — 28 

If  one  of  the  parents  only  is  a  member,      -         -     28—29 
Why  prevent  children  from  coming  to  the  table  of 

the  Loid,  -------  29 

Was  not  the  Lord's  Supper  administered  to  chil- 
dren,      29—30 

There  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  in- 
fant baptism — family  baptisms,    -         -        -         30 — 31 
A  striking  example  of  infant  baptism  in  the  New 

Testament, 31—33 

Children  not  to  be  baptized  because  Jesus  Christ 

was  not  until  30  years  of  age,      -         -         -  33 

Why  was  Jesus  Christ  baptized  by  John,  -  -  33 — 35 
Where  is  the  express  command,      -        -        -        35 — 37 

HISTORICAL  ACCOUNTS. 

Dr.  Miller— Justin  Martyr— Ireaneus—Tertullian — 
Origin — Council  of  Bishops — Augustine — Pela- 
gius,      --------    37—40 

Opposition  to  infant  baptism — Ivimey,    -        -        40 — 41 
The  church  from  the  Reformation— Greek  church- 
Roman  Catholic  church,         -         -        -        -     41 — 43 
Concluding  remarks,      -----        43 — 44 


94 

MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Pages. 
In  what  mode  is  water  to  be  used  to  constitute 

scriptural  baptism — Lutljer,         _        _        -         45 — 46 
The  Greek  word  bapto  and  baptizo— Carson — Dr. 
Miller — Luther's     Translation — Stuart — Greek 

church— Dr.  Kurtz, 46 — 49 

The  classic  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament — Eccle- 
siasticus,  34th  chapter,  23th  verse — Lev.  14th 
chap.  6th  verse — Daniel,  4th  chap.  33rd  verse,  49 — 60 
The  Greek  of  the  New  Testament— Matthew,  3rd 
chap.  16th  verse — John,  1st  chap.  31st  verse — 
Acts,  1st  chap.  5th  verse,  11th  chap,  15th  and 

16th  verses,    ' 51 — 52 

1  Cor.  10th  chapter,  1st  and  2nd  verses— Heb.  9th 
chap.  10th  verse — Mark,  1th  chap.  3rd  verse — 
Luke,  11th  chap.  31th  and  38th  verses,  -         -     52—55 
John's  baptism  not  christian  baptism,       -         -         55 — 57 
Christ's  baptism — his  induction  into  the  Priestly 

office  not  by  immersion,  _         _         _         -     57 — 59 

The  Eunich— Acts,  8th  chap.  38th  and  39th  verses,  59 

John's  baptism  not  by  immersion — Matt.  3rd  chap. 
16th  vers'e — Matt.  3rd  chap.  5th  and  6th  verses — 
John,  3rd  chap  ,  23rd  verse — Matt.  3rd  chapter, 
11th  verse— i Joel,  2nd  chapter,  28th  and  29th 
verses — Acts,  2nd  chapter,  -         -         -         60 — 64 

The  3,000  at  Pentecost — Acts,  2nd  chapter,         -     64 — 66 
The  return  and  conversion  of  the  Jews — Ezekiel, 

36th  chap.  25th  verse,         _         -         -         -  65 

The  Jailor— Acts,  16th  chapter,  ...  66 

The  apostle  Paul— Acts,  9th  chap.  18th  verse,  66 — 67 

Cornelius — Acts,  18th  chap.  47th  verse,  -  67 

The  conclusion  of  the  examination  of  the  above 

passages  of  scripture  and  remarks,  -         -     67 — 68 

Buried  in  baptism — Rom.  6th  chap.  4th  verse,  68 — 70 

One  baptism — Eph.  4th  chap.  5th  verse,  -  7  J 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Christ  went  in  the  Jordan — follow  Christ  in  every 
particular — a  small  piece  of  bread  at  the  com- 
munion— why  does  the  Lord  bless  all  denomina- 
tions— minivers  of  other  denominations  unite 
with  the  Baptist  and  the  reverse — the  change  of 


95 


Pages. 


views  in  Europe  in  relation  to  immersion  and 
close  communion — the  Central  Committee — 
Church  History — Dr.  Campbell,  -         -         71 — 17 

INFERENCES. 

Immersion  alone  as  the  essential  mode  exerts  an 
unhappy  tendency  on  the  minds  of  the  Bap- 
tists— is  injuring  them — is  injuring  community,  78 — 84 

Immersion  alone  as  the  essential  mode,  then  there 
is  no  christian  church  upon  earth.  The  history 
of  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Eng- 
land— America — Roger  Williams,  -         -     84 — 87 

On  close  communion,     -----         87—91 


•    , 


